Opinion ID: 4416279
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: This appeal turns on the correct interpretation of the Nebraska Liquor Control Commission’s “disturbance rule.”1 The rule’s plain language applies only where a licensee “allow[s] any unreasonable disturbance; as such term is defined [in the rule], to continue without taking the steps, as set forth [in the 1 237 Neb. Admin. Code, ch. 6, § 019.01F (2012). - 58 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 303 Nebraska R eports McMANUS ENTERS. v. NEBRASKA LIQUOR CONTROL COMM. Cite as 303 Neb. 56 rule].”2 The commission and the district court on review3 disregarded that plain language: ignoring the words “to continue.” Although we must reverse this license cancellation, we emphasize that our decision does not preclude the commission from adopting a rule that would impose upon licensees a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent disturbances from occurring in the first instance. But its existing rule does not do so, and we are required to apply the rule as written.