- 248 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

312 Nebraska Reports

RAMAEKERS V. CREIGHTON UNIVERSIT

Cite as 312 Neb. 248

Lauren Ramaekers et al., appellants, v. 

Creighton University, a Nebraska 

nonprofit corporation, appellee.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed August 12, 2022. No. S-21-848.

1. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. A jurisdictional question that does not 

involve a factual dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter 

of law.

2. Judgments. The meaning of the judgment is a question of law.

3. Judgments: Appeal and Error. When reviewing questions of law, an 

appellate court resolves the questions independently of the lower court’s 

conclusions.

4. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. Before reaching the legal issues 

presented for review, it is the duty of an appellate court to determine 

whether it has jurisdiction over the matter before it.

5. Jurisdiction: Final Orders: Appeal and Error. For an appellate court 

to acquire jurisdiction of an appeal, the party must be appealing from a 

final order or a judgment.

6. Injunction: Final Orders. While it is well established that orders relating to temporary injunctions and restraining orders are not final orders, 

it is equally well established that orders entering or denying permanent 

injunctions, which leave no issues remaining to be determined by 

the trial court, are final orders within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 25-1902 (Cum. Supp. 2020).

7. Judgments. A judgment’s meaning is determined, as a matter of law, by 

the contents of the judgment in question.

8. ____. Unless the language used in a judgment is ambiguous, the effect 

of the judgment must be declared in the light of the literal meaning of 

the language used.

9. Judgments: Words and Phrases. Ambiguity in a judgment exists when 

a word, phrase, or provision therein has, or is susceptible of, at least two 

reasonable but conflicting interpretations or meanings.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

10/14/2022 09:06 AM CDT
- 249 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

312 Nebraska Reports

RAMAEKERS V. CREIGHTON UNIVERSIT

Cite as 312 Neb. 248

10. Judgments. If the language of a judgment is ambiguous, there is room 

for construction.

11. ____. In ascertaining the meaning of an ambiguous judgment, resort 

may be had to the entire record.

12. Judgments: Intent. Doubtful or ambiguous judgments are to have a 

reasonable intendment to do justice and avoid wrong.

13. Injunction. Generally, the purpose of a temporary injunction is to protect the subject matter of litigation and preserve the status quo of the 

parties until a determination of the case on the merits.

14. Injunction: Judgments: Moot Question. Where there is a final judgment against the party enjoined, the temporary injunction merges into 

the judgment and any questions concerning the propriety of the issuance 

of the temporary injunction become moot.

15. Pleadings. The issues in a case are framed by the pleadings.

16. ____. In an answer, the defending party shall state in short and plain 

terms the party’s defenses to each claim asserted and shall admit or deny 

the averments upon which the adverse party relies.

17. Injunction. There are significant procedural differences between temporary and permanent injunctions.

18. Injunction: Judgments. Generally, a district court should not order a 

judgment on the merits at the temporary injunction stage of proceedings.

Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: Marlon 

A. Polk, Judge. Appeal dismissed.

Robert M. Sullivan, of Sullivan Law, P.C., L.L.O., for 

appellants.

William F. Hargens, Abigail M. Moland, and Britni A. 

Summers, of McGrath, North, Mullin & Kratz, P.C., L.L.O., 

for appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, 

Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

Cassel, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Ten students at Creighton University (Creighton) appeal from 

a district court’s order denying injunctive relief. The threshold 

jurisdictional question is whether the order denied only a temporary injunction, and thus was neither final nor appealable, 
- 250 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

312 Nebraska Reports

RAMAEKERS V. CREIGHTON UNIVERSIT

Cite as 312 Neb. 248

or whether it denied a permanent injunction. Because we find 

ambiguity within the order’s four corners, we examine the 

record, which shows that only temporary relief was sought and 

denied. We therefore lack jurisdiction and dismiss the appeal.

II. BACKGROUND

Because we decide this appeal on jurisdiction, we provide 

only a brief background section. Other facts will be set forth in 

our analysis section below.

1. Vaccine Mandate

In July 2021, Creighton mandated that its students must be 

vaccinated against COVID-19 to register for classes. Creighton 

offered students an exemption from the mandate “due to the 

Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) status of the [COVID19] vaccines.” But to obtain this waiver, students had to 

agree in writing to be vaccinated after “the [COVID-19] vaccines [were] granted full approval by the [U.S.] Food and 

Drug Administration.” On August 23, the Food and Drug 

Administration fully approved certain COVID-19 vaccines.

Accordingly, Creighton mandated that students who had 

obtained the waiver must receive their first dose of a fully 

approved COVID-19 vaccine by September 7, 2021, at 4:30 

p.m. Students who failed to do so would be “administratively 

withdrawn from [Creighton] and unable to attend classes or be 

on campus” after September 10.

2. Complaint for Injunctive Relief

Only 97 minutes before the 4:30 p.m. deadline, four students filed a complaint, styled as a “Petition for Injunction 

& Praecipe.” They sought to enjoin Creighton from administratively withdrawing students who did not comply with its 

COVID-19 vaccine policy.

The next day, Creighton’s attorneys filed a “Notice of 

Appearance,” but Creighton did not, at that time, file either 

a motion to dismiss or an answer. On that same day, the four 

students amended their complaint and filed a “Motion for 
- 251 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

312 Nebraska Reports

RAMAEKERS V. CREIGHTON UNIVERSIT

Cite as 312 Neb. 248

Expedited Ex Parte Hearing.” The amended complaint did not 

change the factual allegations but inserted an additional request 

in their prayer for relief. The motion sought “an order restoring [them] as students of [Creighton], pending further Order of 

the Court.” The motion did not explicitly request a temporary 

restraining order or temporary injunction.

The court “granted” the motion and set an expedited hearing date. But before the hearing, a second amended complaint 

added and deleted plaintiffs without otherwise altering the 

body of the complaint.

3. September 14, 2021, Hearing

The court heard the motion on September 14, 2021. Counsel 

for all parties attended and participated. To the extent the 

proceedings are relevant to the jurisdictional issue, we summarize them at the appropriate point in the analysis section 

below. At the hearing’s end, the court took the motion under 

advisement.

Before the court issued any ruling, third and fourth 

amended complaints were filed adding additional plaintiffs and 

Creighton filed a motion to strike two of the amended complaints. Because the amended complaints never changed the 

factual allegations stated in their original complaint, we do not 

distinguish between the complaints throughout the remainder 

of this opinion. Ultimately, through these amended complaints, 

10 students, Lauren Ramaekers, Patrice Quadrel, Sarah Sinsel, 

Sydney Case, Anne Clare Culpepper, Emma Carlson, Elliot 

Prusa, Avery Gillett, Nikokije Kozic, and Alecsandar Kozic 

(collectively Students), pursued the action.

4. September 17, 2021, Hearing

The court held a hearing on Creighton’s motion to strike 

on September 17, 2021. Counsel for all parties attended and 

participated. For reasons not pertinent here, the court overruled 

Creighton’s motion.

But at this hearing, the court also announced its decision on 

Students’ motion. To the extent the court’s announcement and 
- 252 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

312 Nebraska Reports

RAMAEKERS V. CREIGHTON UNIVERSIT

Cite as 312 Neb. 248

its colloquy with counsel relate to the jurisdictional question, 

we summarize them in the analysis section below.

5. September 22, 2021, Order

On September 22, 2021, the court issued a written order 

(the order). After recounting the September 14 appearances 

of counsel, affidavits received, and procedural history, as well 

as summarizing the September 17 appearances and procedural 

history, the order stated in relevant part:

1. [Ruling on Creighton’s motion to strike.]

2. The court then took up the matter of [Students’] 

requests for injunctive relief in [their complaint].

3. Based on arguments of counsel for [Students], the 

Court concludes that [Students’] request for injunctive 

relief is based on a breach of contract theory. However, 

to the extent that there was a contract between [Students] 

and [Creighton], and without finding that such a contract 

existed, the Court finds that [Students’] agreement to 

receive a COVID-19 vaccine once the [Food and Drug 

Administration] fully approved a COVID-19 vaccine 

became part of that contract.

4. The Court further finds that [Students] have failed to 

show irreparable harm.

5. The Court further finds that [Students] have failed to 

show a likelihood of success on the merits.

6. For the reasons set forth above, and for the reasons 

stated by the Court on the record during the September 

17 . . . hearing, including the Court’s reliance upon the 

legal analysis in [a Seventh Circuit opinion], the Court 

hereby denies [Students’] requests for injunctive relief as 

set forth in [Students’ complaint] and, to the extent [the 

complaint] and/or their Motion for an Expedited Ex Parte 

Hearing could be construed as [m]otions for a [t]emporary 

[r]estraining [o]rder or [t]emporary [i]njunction pursuant 

to Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-1063 and/or 25-1064 [(Reissue 

2016)], those motions are hereby denied.
- 253 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

312 Nebraska Reports

RAMAEKERS V. CREIGHTON UNIVERSIT

Cite as 312 Neb. 248

Students filed a timely appeal. We moved the appeal to our 

docket. 1

III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Students set forth eight assignments of error, all of which, in 

various ways, attack the district court’s refusal to grant injunctive relief.

Creighton’s brief, prior to discussing the merits of the 

court’s order, asserts that we lack jurisdiction of the appeal. 

It contends that the order denied only Students’ request for 

temporary injunctive relief and that, therefore, the order was 

neither final nor appealable.

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] A jurisdictional question that does not involve a factual 

dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter of law. 2

[2] The meaning of the judgment is a question of law. 3

[3] When reviewing questions of law, an appellate court 

resolves the questions independently of the lower court’s 

conclusions. 4

V. ANALYSIS

1. Jurisdictional Question

[4,5] Before reaching the legal issues presented for review, 

it is the duty of an appellate court to determine whether it has 

jurisdiction over the matter before it. 5 For an appellate court to 

acquire jurisdiction of an appeal, the party must be appealing 

from a final order or a judgment. 6

[6] While it is well established that orders relating to temporary injunctions and restraining orders are not final orders, 

1 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106(3) (Cum. Supp. 2020).

2 In re Estate of Beltran, 310 Neb. 174, 964 N.W.2d 714 (2021).

3 Rice v. Webb, 287 Neb. 712, 844 N.W.2d 290 (2014).

4 In re Estate of Beltran, supra note 2.

5 Cinatl v. Prososki, 307 Neb. 477, 949 N.W.2d 505 (2020).

6 Id.
- 254 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

312 Nebraska Reports

RAMAEKERS V. CREIGHTON UNIVERSIT

Cite as 312 Neb. 248

it is equally well established that orders entering or denying 

permanent injunctions, which leave no issues remaining to be 

determined by the trial court, are final orders within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902 (Cum. Supp. 2020). 7 For over 

150 years, we have repeatedly held that the issuance, 8 denial, 9

or dissolution 10 of a temporary injunction is not a final order.

Therefore, for this court to have jurisdiction for the instant 

appeal, the order must not only have denied temporary injunctive relief, but also have denied a permanent injunction. 

Students argue that the court did so, citing the language in 

the order that stated, “[T]he Court hereby denies [Students’] 

requests for injunctive relief as set forth in [their complaint].” 

Creighton, on the other hand, argues that the order addressed 

only Students’ request for temporary injunctive relief, focusing 

on language of the order that recited findings pertinent only to 

temporary injunctive relief. We first turn to the principles of 

law applicable to determining the meaning of a judgment or 

an order.

2. Principles of Law

[7-9] A judgment’s meaning is determined, as a matter of 

law, by the contents of the judgment in question. 11 Unless the 

7 Waite v. City of Omaha, 263 Neb. 589, 641 N.W.2d 351 (2002).

8 See, Shasta Linen Supply v. Applied Underwriters, 290 Neb. 640, 861 

N.W.2d 425 (2015); Pennfield Oil Co. v. Winstrom, 267 Neb. 288, 673 

N.W.2d 558 (2004); State ex rel. Beck v. Associates Discount Corp., 

162 Neb. 683, 77 N.W.2d 215 (1956); Guaranty Fund Commission v. 

Teichmeier, 119 Neb. 387, 229 N.W. 121 (1930); Barkley v. Pool, 102 

Neb. 799, 169 N.W. 730 (1918); Young v. City of Albion, 77 Neb. 678, 110 

N.W. 706 (1906); Bartram v. Sherman, 46 Neb. 713, 65 N.W. 789 (1896);

School Dist. No. 15 v. Brown, 10 Neb. 440, 6 N.W. 770 (1880).

9 See, Waite v. City of Omaha, supra note 7; Manning v. Connell, 47 Neb. 

83, 66 N.W. 17 (1896).

10 See, Waite v. City of Omaha, supra note 7; Abramson v. Bemis, 201 Neb. 

97, 266 N.W.2d 226 (1978); Meng v. Coffee, 52 Neb. 44, 71 N.W. 975 

(1897); Smith v. Sahler, 1 Neb. 310 (1871). See, also, Clark v. Fitch, 32 

Neb. 511, 49 N.W. 374 (1891) (declining to dissolve not final).

11 See Kerndt v. Ronan, 236 Neb. 26, 458 N.W.2d 466 (1990).
- 255 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

312 Nebraska Reports

RAMAEKERS V. CREIGHTON UNIVERSIT

Cite as 312 Neb. 248

language used in a judgment is ambiguous, the effect of the 

judgment must be declared in the light of the literal meaning 

of the language used. 12 Ambiguity in a judgment exists when 

a word, phrase, or provision therein has, or is susceptible 

of, at least two reasonable but conflicting interpretations 

or meanings. 13

[10-12] If the language of a judgment is ambiguous, there 

is room for construction. 14 In ascertaining the meaning of an 

ambiguous judgment, resort may be had to the entire record. 15

Doubtful or ambiguous judgments are to have a reasonable 

intendment to do justice and avoid wrong. 16

Although we may not have said so previously, we see no 

reason why these principles should not apply to orders—at 

least where the order may be final. With the principles in mind, 

we turn to the four corners of the order.

3. Four Corners

Near the end of the background section, we extensively 

quoted the relevant parts of the order. We need not repeat 

them here.

We find the order to be ambiguous. It used language that—

considered in the context of the entire order—can reasonably 

be read to have more than one conflicting meaning.

In the order, the court “denie[d] [Students’] requests for 

injunctive relief as set forth in [their complaint].” The complaint sought to permanently enjoin Creighton from enforcing 

its COVID-19 vaccine policy. Accordingly, that part of the 

order could reasonably be read to deny Students’ request for a 

permanent injunction.

12 See Bokelman v. Bokelman, 202 Neb. 17, 272 N.W.2d 916 (1979).

13 Carlson v. Carlson, 299 Neb. 526, 909 N.W.2d 351 (2018).

14 Label Concepts v. Westendorf Plastics, 247 Neb. 560, 528 N.W.2d 335 

(1995), disapproved on other grounds, Weyh v. Gottsch, 303 Neb. 280, 929 

N.W.2d 40 (2019).

15 Id.

16 Bayne v. Bayne, 302 Neb. 858, 925 N.W.2d 687 (2019).
- 256 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

312 Nebraska Reports

RAMAEKERS V. CREIGHTON UNIVERSIT

Cite as 312 Neb. 248

However, a conflicting interpretation arises when that language is considered alongside the rest of the order. The court 

denied injunctive relief after applying an analytical framework 

commonly used by courts only to deny requests for temporary injunctive relief. 17 Another part of the order, referring to 

“[Students’ complaint] and/or their Motion for an Expedited 

Ex Parte Hearing,” said that they “could be construed as 

[m]otions for a [t]emporary [r]estraining [o]rder or [t]emporary [i]njunction.”

[13,14] If, as Students contend, the order was intended to 

deny their request for a permanent injunction, there would have 

been no reason for the court to include a temporary injunction analysis. Generally, the purpose of a temporary injunction 

is to protect the subject matter of litigation and preserve the 

status quo of the parties until a determination of the case on 

the merits. 18 Where there is a final judgment against the party 

enjoined, the temporary injunction merges into the judgment 

and any questions concerning the propriety of the issuance of 

the temporary injunction become moot. 19 To paraphrase our 

discussion of a similar situation, a court need not rule on who 

won a battle, if it has already decided who won the war. 20

Because the order is ambiguous, we turn to the record to 

ascertain its meaning.

4. Meaning in Light of Entire Record

(a) Additional Facts

We now look to the record, focusing on the acts and words 

of the parties and the court at the two hearings and in their 

17 See, e.g., Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 

129 S. Ct. 365, 172 L. Ed. 2d 249 (2008).

18 Pennfield Oil Co. v. Winstrom, 272 Neb. 219, 720 N.W.2d 886 (2006).

19 See State ex rel. Douglas v. Ledwith, 204 Neb. 6, 281 N.W.2d 729 (1979).

20 See Melanie M. v. Winterer, 290 Neb. 764, 862 N.W.2d 76 (2015) 

(discussing termination of temporary restraining order by overruling of 

motion for temporary injunction and sustaining of motion for summary 

judgment).
- 257 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

312 Nebraska Reports

RAMAEKERS V. CREIGHTON UNIVERSIT

Cite as 312 Neb. 248

filings. As we articulate below, we find that the order denied 

only Students’ request for a temporary injunction.

(i) Students’ Motion Sought Temporary Relief

To begin, Students’ motion sought “an order restoring 

[them] as students of [Creighton], pending further Order of the 

Court.” (Emphasis supplied.) This clearly reflects a request for 

a temporary order, to be followed at a later time by something 

more—presumably, by a judgment or final order.

(ii) Pleadings Failed to Frame Issues

[15,16] When Students filed their motion, Creighton had 

not filed an answer nor had the time expired for the filing of 

an answer. The issues in a case are framed by the pleadings. 21

In an answer, the defending party shall state in short and plain 

terms the party’s defenses to each claim asserted and shall 

admit or deny the averments upon which the adverse party 

relies. 22 Long ago, we said that it is always well to have issues 

framed before judgment. 23 Treating the hearing on Students’ 

motion as a trial on the merits would circumvent the issueframing function of pleadings. Moreover, it would deprive 

Creighton of any opportunity to assert defenses.

(iii) Arguments at September 14, 2021, Hearing

The court began the September 14, 2021, hearing by noting 

that Students had not filed a motion for a temporary restraining order or a motion for temporary injunction. Then, the 

court stated, “[Students] are requesting an order . . . restoring 

[them] as students of [Creighton]” and “the Court is going to 

construe that . . . request by [Students] as . . . requesting temporary relief from this Court, pursuant to [§] 25-1063, which 

will equitably permit the Court to consider this in [Students’] 

motion as seeking some temporary relief . . . .”

21 In re Petition of Anonymous 5, 286 Neb. 640, 838 N.W.2d 226 (2013).

22 See Neb. Ct. R. Pldg. § 6-1108(b).

23 Tecumseh Nat. Bank v. Harmon, 48 Neb. 222, 66 N.W. 1128 (1896).
- 258 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

312 Nebraska Reports

RAMAEKERS V. CREIGHTON UNIVERSIT

Cite as 312 Neb. 248

Neither party contradicted the court’s interpretation of 

Students’ motion. The court then instructed the parties “to proceed accordingly.”

First, the parties submitted affidavits to the court, which the 

court—imposing its own limitation—received “for purposes of 

this hearing.” Neither party objected to the court’s limitation.

Students and Creighton then argued whether the court should 

grant Students’ request for a temporary injunction. Students 

began by contending that “the allegations set forth in the [complaint] met the standards necessary for a temporary injunction. 

. . . [I]t would be appropriate for the Court to enter an order 

of temporary injunction, . . . so we can have more evidence on 

this and really open this up and see what’s in there.”

Creighton responded by first noting its difficulties in sufficiently defending against Students’ allegations, because “this 

case . . . has been a moving target. The facts, the allegations, 

the even purported evidence offered by [Students] has been 

evolving . . . .”

Creighton also highlighted perceived deficiencies in 

Students’ complaint. Creighton noted, “We’ve got several 

people named in the caption of the case. None of them are 

identified in . . . the body of the [complaint]. . . . [T]wo of the 

plaintiffs have already received the [COVID-19] vaccine. . . . 

They’ve not been unenrolled, . . . they don’t have a place in 

this lawsuit.”

Creighton concluded by contending that the evidence in 

the record did not support Students’ request for a temporary 

injunction. For instance, Creighton argued that there was not 

“any medical evidence to support” Students’ allegation that 

“some [of them] have serious medical conditions which make 

the vaccine ‘not recommended’” in the affidavits received by 

the court.

In rebuttal, Students conceded that “this case has been a 

moving target since we filed it.” However, they argued that 

“the nature of a temporary injunction is such that . . . the pleadings may not look all that finely tuned originally, but as soon as 
- 259 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

312 Nebraska Reports

RAMAEKERS V. CREIGHTON UNIVERSIT

Cite as 312 Neb. 248

we can get something in place that can allow us all to breathe, 

then we can go back in and clean things up quite a bit.”

The court concluded the hearing by taking the matter under 

advisement. The court expressed its desire to issue a ruling 

quickly “based on the circumstances involving [Students].” 

However, the court never indicated it planned to issue a final 

ruling on the merits of Students’ complaint.

(iv) Discussion at September 17, 2021, Hearing

Three days later, the court orally announced its ruling on 

Students’ request for a temporary injunction. The court stated:

[I]t is the Court’s intention to deny [Students’ complaint] for [i]njunction and/or [t]emporary [r]estraining 

order under [§§] 25-1063 and 25-1064, et seq. [Students] 

have asserted a kind of a breach of contract theory against 

Creighton. . . . [T]he Court does not believe that [Students] 

could show any irreparable injury that [Students] would 

be able to show a likelihood of succeeding on the merits 

of a breach of contract against Creighton.

In response, Students’ attorney asked the court, “I assume, 

Your Honor, that this is a final order and that the case has been 

dismissed?” The court answered that it was not a final order 

and that the case was not dismissed, because the court read 

Students’ complaint as “still seeking some breach of contract 

related damages, monetary damages. It had claims for unjust 

enrichment . . . . [T]he Court’s ruling is only . . . in regards to 

the request for the temporary injunction.”

Students’ attorney rebutted the court’s belief that Students 

were seeking monetary damages. Their attorney claimed that 

the allegations of monetary damages “were simply for purposes 

of alleging to the Court the need for a temporary injunction.”

Creighton’s attorney noted that it was immaterial whether 

Students were seeking monetary damages, because “a denial 

of a request for a temporary injunctive relief does not constitute a dismissal on the merits, so I don’t think the case 

stands dismissed. I don’t think it’s a final appealable order at 

this point.”
- 260 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

312 Nebraska Reports

RAMAEKERS V. CREIGHTON UNIVERSIT

Cite as 312 Neb. 248

The court concluded the hearing without providing a definitive answer on whether it still believed issues remained before 

it or whether its denial of Students’ request for a temporary 

injunction was a final order. The court stated, “I do not need 

to weigh in on [that,] because that’s above my pay grade. So I 

will let you all deal with the implications of it . . . .”

(b) Resolution

It is apparent from the record that the order meant only to 

deny Students’ request for a temporary injunction. The record 

reflected an understanding—by the court and the parties—

that only the temporary injunction was before the court. The 

record does not include any stipulation to enter a final judgment based on the evidence adduced in support of a temporary 

injunction. 24 Nor did either party file a motion to dismiss or 

motion for summary judgment in order to reach the merits of 

Students’ complaint. 25

Further, it is evident from the instructions given to the 

parties at the September 14, 2021, hearing that the court 

intended only to rule on whether Students were to receive a 

temporary injunction. At the hearing, the court informed the 

parties that it construed Students’ motion as requesting temporary injunctive relief and instructed the parties “to proceed 

accordingly.”

[17] If the court intended to make an ultimate determination 

on the merits of Students’ complaint, we believe that it would 

have instructed the parties differently. As the U.S. Supreme 

Court has explained, there are significant procedural differences between temporary and permanent injunctions. 26 As the 

court stated:

24 See, generally, Fetherkile v. Fetherkile, 299 Neb. 76, 907 N.W.2d 275 

(2018).

25 See, generally, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1332 (Cum. Supp. 2020); Neb. Ct. R. 

Pldg. § 6-1112(b).

26 See University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 101 S. Ct. 1830, 68 

L. Ed. 2d 175 (1981).
- 261 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

312 Nebraska Reports

RAMAEKERS V. CREIGHTON UNIVERSIT

Cite as 312 Neb. 248

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is merely to 

preserve the relative positions of the parties until a trial 

on the merits can be held. Given this limited purpose, and 

given the haste that is often necessary if those positions 

are to be preserved, a preliminary injunction is customarily granted on the basis of procedures that are less formal 

and evidence that is less complete than in a trial on the 

merits. A party thus is not required to prove his case in 

full at a preliminary-injunction hearing . . . . 27

Further, the Court warned that it is generally inappropriate for 

a federal court at the preliminary injunction stage to give a 

final judgment on the merits. 28

[18] While we are not bound by the high court’s discussion or by the federal rules of civil procedure, we agree that a 

similar principle should apply to Nebraska trial courts having 

equity jurisdiction. Generally, a district court should not order 

a judgment on the merits at the temporary injunction stage 

of proceedings. 29 Doing so could raise due process concerns, 

because, as a federal court has observed in the context of a 

federal rule, 30 when a trial court disposes of a case on the 

merits after a preliminary injunction hearing without expressly 

ordering consolidation, it is likely that one or more of the 

parties will not present their entire case at an unconsolidated 

preliminary injunction hearing. 31

Here, reading the order as disposing of Students’ complaint on the merits would raise due process concerns. Neither 

Students nor Creighton presented its entire case to the court at 

27 Id., 451 U.S. at 395.

28 Id. But see Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2) (allowing federal court to consolidate 

preliminary injunction hearing with trial on merits, but only if sufficient 

notice is given to parties).

29 See University of Texas v. Camenisch, supra note 26.

30 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2).

31 See Francisco Sánchez v. Esso Standard Oil Co., 572 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 

2009).
- 262 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

312 Nebraska Reports

RAMAEKERS V. CREIGHTON UNIVERSIT

Cite as 312 Neb. 248

the September 14, 2021, hearing. As detailed earlier, the arguments were directed toward whether the court should grant 

Students’ temporary injunctive relief—not the final disposition 

of the claims and any defenses.

Judgments are to have a reasonable intendment to do justice 

and avoid wrong. 32 Accordingly, to avoid infringing on the 

parties’ due process rights, we find that the order denied only 

Students’ request for temporary injunctive relief.

At oral argument, relying upon our 2018 decision in Tilson 

v. Tilson,

 33 Students argued that even if the order was properly 

characterized as a denial of a temporary injunction, it was 

nonetheless a final order under § 25-1902. We are not persuaded. There, we found that an order denying a request for 

temporary relief was not a final order. 34 So, in that case, we 

dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 35 Students’ reliance on that decision is misplaced.

VI. CONCLUSION

Students appeal from an order that denied only their request 

for temporary injunctive relief. For over 150 years, we have 

held that such orders are neither final nor appealable. Because 

the court’s denial of a temporary injunction was not a final 

order, we lack jurisdiction of the appeal and must dismiss it.

Appeal dismissed.

32 See Bayne v. Bayne, supra note 16.

33 Tilson v. Tilson, 299 Neb. 64, 907 N.W.2d 31 (2018).

34 See id.

35 See id.