Sedighi v. Schnackel

- 890 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
317 Nebraska Reports
SEDIGHI v. SCHNACKEL ENGINEERS
Cite as 317 Neb. 890
Meisam Sedighi, appellant, v.
Schnackel Engineers, Inc., appellee.
___ N.W.3d ___
Filed October 25, 2024. 	No. S-23-822.
1. Courts: Judgments: Appeal and Error. In appeals from the district
court sitting as an appellate court, the immediate question is whether the
district court erred in its appellate review of the county court’s decision,
but review of that question necessarily involves considering the decision
of the county court.
2. Small Claims Court: Judgments: Appeal and Error. A judgment
rendered by a small claims court is reviewed for error appearing on
the record.
3. Judgments: Appeal and Error. When reviewing a judgment for error
appearing on the record, the inquiry is whether the decision conforms to
law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capri-
cious, nor unreasonable.
4. ____: ____. Whether a decision conforms to law is, by definition, a
question of law, to which an appellate court must reach an indepen-
dent, correct conclusion irrespective of the determination made by the
court below.
5. Evidence: Words and Phrases. Competent evidence is evidence that is
admissible and tends to establish a fact in issue.
6. Words and Phrases. A decision is arbitrary when it is made in disregard
of the facts or circumstances and without some basis which would lead
a reasonable person to the same conclusion.
7. ____. A capricious decision is one guided by fancy rather than by judg-
ment or settled purpose.
8. ____. The term “unreasonable” can be applied to a decision only when
the evidence presented leaves no room for differences of opinion among
reasonable minds.
9. Trial: Judgments: Evidence: Appeal and Error. Where neither
party requests that the trial court make specific findings of fact and
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
10/14/2026 08:27 AM CDT

- 891 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
317 Nebraska Reports
SEDIGHI v. SCHNACKEL ENGINEERS
Cite as 317 Neb. 890
conclusions of law, if there is a conflict in the evidence, the appellate
court in reviewing the judgment rendered will presume that the contro-
verted facts were decided in favor of the successful party.
10. Verdicts: Presumptions: Appeal and Error. Where a general verdict
is returned for one of the parties, and the mental processes of the finder
of fact are not tested by special interrogatories to indicate which issue
was determinative of the verdict, it will be presumed that all issues were
resolved in favor of the prevailing party, and, where a single determina-
tive issue has been presented to the finder of fact free from error, any
error in presenting another issue will be disregarded.
Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County, Shelly
R. Stratman, Judge, on appeal thereto from the County Court
for Douglas County, John E. Huber, Judge. Judgment of
District Court reversed and remanded with direction.
Meisam Sedighi, pro se.
Kristin M. Probst Nalbach and Alexander S. Arkfeld, of
Fraser Stryker, P.C., L.L.O., for appellee.
Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke,
Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
Heavican, C.J.
INTRODUCTION
Meisam Sedighi appeals from the district court’s reversal of
the judgment of the small claims court awarding him $3,000
from Schnackel Engineers, Inc., for “reimbursement” of money
he paid to an immigration attorney for the preparation and filing
of an application for permanent labor certification, commonly
referred to as “PERM,” the acronym for the legacy electronic
filing system, “Program Electronic Review Management,” of
the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL).
The 	issue 	on 	appeal 	is 	whether 	Schnackel 	Engineers
was relieved of its financial responsibility under 20 C.F.R.
§ 656.12(b) (2023) by the presence of an employment con-
tract provision that purported to make an alien responsible for
all costs related to the issuance of a permanent resident card,

- 892 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
317 Nebraska Reports
SEDIGHI v. SCHNACKEL ENGINEERS
Cite as 317 Neb. 890
colloquially referred to as a “green card” due to the historical
color of the card. 1
On these facts, we conclude that Schnackel Engineers was
not relieved of its financial responsibility and find that the
district court erred in finding error on the record of the small
claims court. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the dis-
trict court and direct it to reinstate the judgment of the small
claims court.
BACKGROUND
We recount the events underlying Sedighi’s claim as estab-
lished by email correspondence received into evidence by the
small claims court.
Employment Negotiations
The record indicates that Sedighi was nearing completion
of a master’s degree in electrical and computer engineering
from a university in the State of New York and was searching
for employment in the United States. On January 10, 2023,
Schnackel Engineers offered Sedighi a position via email,
stating that it “will be able to give [Sedighi] the position, job
stability, and growth opportunities, [he was] looking for.” An
offer letter was attached to the email but does not appear in
the appellate record.
On January 12, 2023, Sedighi sought clarification from
Schnackel 	Engineers 	on 	several 	“points,” 	which 	included
whether it would “accommodate applying for [his] green
card from the first day of employment.” Schnackel Engineers
inquired as to “what exactly” Sedighi was “looking for” regard-
ing his applying for a green card. Sedighi requested that it
“help both on the paperwork side and the legal expenses” and
asked whether Schnackel Engineers had its “own lawyer and
legal team.” Sedighi also provided Schnackel Engineers with a
1 See U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, The Colorful History of
the Green Card, https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/our-history/stories-from-
the-archives/the-colorful-history-of-the-green-card (last visited Oct. 18,
2024).

- 893 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
317 Nebraska Reports
SEDIGHI v. SCHNACKEL ENGINEERS
Cite as 317 Neb. 890
cost estimate of such legal expenses that he had received from
a Michigan immigration attorney.
The attorney’s estimate identified the filing fees and corre-
sponding attorney fees for itemized legal services: a $0 filing
fee and a $3,000 attorney fee for “Perm/Labor Certification”; a
$700 filing fee and $1,600 attorney fee for “I-140, Immigrant
Petition for Alien Workers”; and a $1,225 filing fee and $1,700
attorney fee for “I-485 Adjustment of Status Application,”
“I-131 EAD,” and “I-765 AP.” The estimate also stated that the
$3,000 fee “[m]ust be paid by the company” and indicated that
additional “ad cost[s]” may arise, unless the employer already
had advertisements for the employment position.
On January 13, 2023, Schnackel Engineers responded that
it did not have its “own legal team” and sought clarification
on whether Sedighi had a spouse or children “who [were]
also involved.” Sedighi confirmed that “it would be just”
him and indicated that he believed the cost of applying for
a green card would total approximately $10,000. In a subse-
quent email, Schnackel Engineers sought clarification as to
the cost estimate that Sedighi provided. In response, Sedighi
added the Michigan immigration attorney to the email chain
and requested the attorney “verify what the final green card
application dollar value would be” for Schnackel Engineers.
Schnackel Engineers replied to Sedighi, removing the attor-
ney from the email chain, and stated that it had “a local
employment attorney that [it] would work with.” Schnackel
Engineers sought clarification as to how Sedighi reached his
approximated total amount of $10,000. Sedighi explained that
the discrepancy was due to his estimate of an advertising
fee, which the attorney would need to “calculate and add to
the [total] fee” and was why he included the attorney in the
prior email.
Schnackel Engineers responded that its “HR department
[was] going to reach out to the employment attorney [it]
work[s] with for a quick discussion on associated costs”
and that it would “let [Sedighi] know once that discussion

- 894 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
317 Nebraska Reports
SEDIGHI v. SCHNACKEL ENGINEERS
Cite as 317 Neb. 890
occur[ed].” Thereafter, in response to Sedighi’s prior email,
the Michigan immigration attorney replied to Sedighi and
Schnackel Engineers and explained the cost estimate and the
possibility of legally required advertisement costs.
On January 17, 2023, Sedighi accepted Schnackel Engineers’
offer of employment and informed it that he spoke with his
“immigration lawyer” and “realized there is a possibility of
filing for [his] own green card” by way of a “National Interest
Waiver” 	(NIW). 	Schnackel 	Engineers 	then 	asked 	Sedighi
whether his “immigration lawyer” gave him “any sort of
insight into the timeframe involved in obtaining [his] green
card through this avenue.” Schnackel Engineers indicated that
due to a time estimate it received from its employment attor-
ney, it was concerned with Sedighi’s ability to obtain his
green card before his temporary student visa expired. Sedighi
then emailed the Michigan immigration attorney concerning
the timeline. The attorney responded that “[p]erm and pwage
take 15 months. Then, he can file I140 and I485 concur-
rently. 6 months after filing I485, he can receive the EAD
[(Employment Authorization Document)]. Thus, he should
receive EAD within 2 years.” Sedighi forwarded this email to
Schnackel Engineers.
Thereafter, Schnackel Engineers emailed Sedighi on January
17, 2023, indicating that it “wanted to make sure [it was]
comfortable with being able to offer [him] a position without
fear of losing [him] because of immigration laws.” The email
included an “amended” offer letter as an attachment, which
Schnackel Engineers amended “to indicate that [it would]
enter [Sedighi] in the H-1B lottery [(a type of temporary non-
immigrant employment visa)] and that the offer is contingent
upon [him] pursuing [his] green card.” The record does not
contain a copy of the offer letter sent on January 17, but an
offer letter dated January 18, 2023, contains the following
provision: “You will pursue your green card through whatever
means necessary, at your cost, in order to achieve full resident
status before your F-1 CPT visa [(a type of temporary student

- 895 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
317 Nebraska Reports
SEDIGHI v. SCHNACKEL ENGINEERS
Cite as 317 Neb. 890
visa)] expires.” It also stated that “Schnackel Engineers will
enter you in the H-1B lottery in 2023 and 2024, if necessary.”
Sedighi accepted this amended offer, “assuming” Schnackel
Engineers would “help” him with “the green card paperwork.”
Schnackel Engineers replied that it was “happy to help with
the paperwork.” Sedighi then informed Schnackel Engineers
that he would “also connect [it] with [the Michigan immigra-
tion attorney] to share the necessary documents.”
Filing of Paperwork
On January 18, 2023, upon Sedighi’s request, the Michigan
immigration 	attorney 	sent 	him 	documents 	named 	“Perm
Checklist” and “Employer-Information,” instructing Sedighi to
“ask [his] employer to complete the attached employer infor-
mation checklist.” Sedighi forwarded this email to Schnackel
Engineers, which requested Sedighi email “the signed offer
letter and [it would] get started on the checklist.”
On January 23, 2023, Sedighi sent his resume and the
offer letter from Schnackel Engineers to another immigra-
tion law firm, inquiring as to his ability to apply for a green
card via an NIW from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services. Although this is the first evidenced communication,
the record suggests that prior communications had already
occurred between Sedighi and this immigration law firm. On
January 26, the firm sent its final communication in the record,
declining to take Sedighi’s NIW case based on his qualifica-
tions and work history.
On February 18, 2023, Schnackel Engineers emailed Sedighi
with “the completed employer information form, the perm
checklist employer letter, and the perm checklist needed by
[the Michigan immigration attorney]” and indicated that it
had hard copies of the same ready to provide Sedighi on his
first date of employment the following Monday. On February
20, Sedighi provided the Michigan immigration attorney with
the two completed “perm forms.” The next day, the attorney
requested a $3,000 payment be made and confirmed that

- 896 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
317 Nebraska Reports
SEDIGHI v. SCHNACKEL ENGINEERS
Cite as 317 Neb. 890
a second payment would “be due after [Sedighi’s] perm is
approved and ready to file I140.” Thereafter, Sedighi paid the
attorney in two separate transactions via a digital payment ser-
vice, totaling $3,000.
On March 6, 2023, Sedighi forwarded a question from the
Michigan immigration attorney to Schnackel Engineers, inquir-
ing as to its experience with filing green card applications.
Schnackel Engineers replied to the attorney’s email, indicating
that it had “entered people into the H1B lottery” and currently
had “an individual with an O1 [(a type of temporary non-
immigrant employment visa)] who recently received an EB1
[(a type of permanent immigrant employment visa)] via an
accepted I-140” and that it had “not sponsored an individual
through the full Green Card process at [that] point.” The attor-
ney responded that she would guide Schnackel Engineers
“to open accounts on the government websites and start the
recruitment” process.
On March 7, 2023, Schnackel Engineers told the Michigan
immigration attorney to inform the company “what [it] need[ed]
to do when” and that it would “take care of it.” The attorney
responded with directions on how Schnackel Engineers could
create the necessary accounts and “create a subaccount” for the
attorney. Later that day, the attorney provided confirmation to
Schnackel Engineers that “a prevailing wage” was filed “for
this case under EB2 [(a type of permanent immigrant employ-
ment visa)] today,” which needed “about 8 months to process.”
Interim Events Unclear
The record does not fully disclose the subsequent events but
suggests that Sedighi was unhappy with Schnackel Engineers’
work environment, believed its training schedule was disor-
ganized, and was misled as to the conditions of its Omaha,
Nebraska, office. On March 14, 2023, the primary employee
with whom Sedighi was communicating sent him a letter of
recommendation, and, on March 15, Sedighi requested that
Schnackel Engineers “hold [his] H1B application so that if

- 897 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
317 Nebraska Reports
SEDIGHI v. SCHNACKEL ENGINEERS
Cite as 317 Neb. 890
it is picked in the lottery, [he could] transfer it to another
company.”
Request for $3,000 Reimbursement
On March 21, 2023, Sedighi thought there had been a “mis-
understanding in the green card fee payment” and, citing infor-
mation available on the DOL’s website, asserted that Schnackel
Engineers was required to reimburse him the $3,000 that he
paid the Michigan immigration attorney for the application for
permanent labor certification filed with the DOL. On March
22, Schnackel Engineers denied Sedighi’s request for reim-
bursement, pointing to his previous email wherein he indicated
that he would be looking into filing for his green card via an
NIW, which does not require employer sponsorship or have
any employer costs associated with it, and to the offer letter
provision that stated his pursuit of his green card would be at
his cost.
On March 23, 2023, Sedighi clarified that he “mentioned”
that a NIW was a “possibility” but that the Michigan immi-
gration attorney told him that he did “not have enough publi-
cations to go that route.” Sedighi again asserted that under 20
C.F.R. § 656.12(b), Schnackel Engineers was required to reim-
burse him for the $3,000 payment for the preparation and fil-
ing of the permanent labor certification application. Schnackel
Engineers disagreed and contended that it was “not obligated
nor willing to contribute toward [his] green card effort”
because the offer letter’s provision that Sedighi pursue a green
card at his own cost was “legally binding” and he “should
have recognized” that the provision “tied [him] into the NIW
route when [he] signed it.” Schnackel Engineers asserted that
it was “not legally required to reimburse [Sedighi] for fees
that were a result of something that [it] never agreed to.”
Thereafter, Sedighi provided Schnackel Engineers notice of
his intention to file a lawsuit if it continued to refuse to reim-
burse him the $3,000 that he had paid to the Michigan immi-
gration attorney. Schnackel Engineers rejected this “demand
for payment” through counsel.

- 898 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
317 Nebraska Reports
SEDIGHI v. SCHNACKEL ENGINEERS
Cite as 317 Neb. 890
Court Proceedings
Sedighi filed suit in the small claims court of the county
court for Douglas County. At trial, Sedighi argued that 20
C.F.R. § 656.12(b) mandates that an employer pay for all costs
incurred in preparing and filing a permanent labor certifica-
tion application and that because the Michigan immigration
attorney prepared and filed a permanent labor certification
application, Sedighi was entitled to reimbursement of the
$3,000 fee.
Schnackel Engineers’ director of accounting appeared on
its behalf. Schnackel Engineers argued that it was not legally
responsible for the $3,000 fee because it did not agree to
pay for the permanent labor certification application; instead,
Sedighi was to pursue applying for his green card via a NIW,
which is obtained via “self-petition” and is unlike “other
green cards” that require an employer to file a petition.
Schnackel Engineers asserted that “[it] filed no petition on
[Sedighi’s] behalf. Whatever he did outside of work, [it] had
no control over.”
Although highly skeptical of Sedighi’s claim at the hear-
ing, the small claims court later entered judgment in favor
of Sedighi. In its judgment, the court stated: “Pursuant to 20
C.F.R. § 656.12[,] the employer is responsible for all costs
associated with PERM process.” Schnackel Engineers appealed
to the district court.
On 	appeal, 	Schnackel 	Engineers 	argued 	that 	the 	small
claims court erred in its judgment because the $3,000 fee was
Sedighi’s “private attorney fees” and that it “never engaged
with this attorney to do any labor certification work on [its]
behalf.” In its judgment, the district court agreed.
The district court found that “[t]he employment contract
controls the parties’ obligations in this case, and that docu-
ment designates [Sedighi] would pursue his green card at his
own expense.” Acknowledging the small claims court cor-
rectly found that under 20 C.F.R. § 656.12, the employer is
responsible for all costs associated with the PERM process,

- 899 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
317 Nebraska Reports
SEDIGHI v. SCHNACKEL ENGINEERS
Cite as 317 Neb. 890
it nevertheless found error on the record due to the employ-
ment agreement “being based on [Sedighi’s] representation he
would be seeking his green card through the NIW process”
and 20 C.F.R. § 656.12 further providing that an alien may pay
for his or own attorney.
It reasoned:
In this case, [Sedighi] had already hired a lawyer and
chose to pursue permanent labor certification through
the PERM process on his own. [Schnackel Engineers]
neither offered nor agreed to cover any expenses associ-
ated with the PERM process. The employment offer that
was signed and accepted by [Sedighi] clearly indicates
[Schnackel Engineers] would enter him into the H-1B
lottery in 2023 and 2024, if necessary[,] and that he
would be pursuing his green card at his cost in order
to achieve full resident status before his F-1 CPT visa
expires. [Sedighi] was pursuing permanent labor certifi-
cation through the PERM process on his own and with
his own lawyer.
Thus, the district court concluded that the Michigan immigra-
tion attorney represented Sedighi, not Schnackel Engineers.
Accordingly, the district court vacated the small claims
court’s judgment and entered judgment on behalf of Schnackel
Engineers.
Sedighi filed a timely appeal, which we moved to our docket
pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-102(C) (rev. 2022). 2
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Sedighi assigns, summarized and restated, that the district
court erred in (1) finding that the Michigan immigration attor-
ney was solely his attorney and (2) failing to conclude that the
offer letter provision that he “pursue [his] green card through
whatever means necessary, at [his] cost, in order to achieve
full resident status” was void as a matter of law insofar as
2 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106(3) (Cum. Supp. 2022).

- 900 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
317 Nebraska Reports
SEDIGHI v. SCHNACKEL ENGINEERS
Cite as 317 Neb. 890
it required him to pay Schnackel Engineers’ costs associated
with the DOL application for permanent labor certification.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[1] In appeals from the district court sitting as an appel-
late court, the immediate question is whether the district court
erred in its appellate review of the county court’s decision, but
review of that question necessarily involves considering the
decision of the county court. 3
[2,3] A judgment rendered by a small claims court is reviewed
for error appearing on the record. 4 When reviewing a judgment
for error appearing on the record, the inquiry is whether the
decision conforms to law, is supported by competent evidence,
and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable. 5
[4-8] Whether a decision conforms to law is, by definition,
a question of law, to which an appellate court must reach an
independent, correct conclusion irrespective of the determina-
tion made by the court below. 6 Competent evidence is evi-
dence that is admissible and tends to establish a fact in issue. 7
A decision is arbitrary when it is made in disregard of the
facts or circumstances and without some basis which would
lead a reasonable person to the same conclusion. 8 A capricious
decision is one guided by fancy rather than by judgment or
3 State v. Jennings, 308 Neb. 835, 957 N.W.2d 143 (2021).
4 See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-2733 and 25-2807 (Reissue 2016). See, also,
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1911 (Reissue 2016). Cf. State v. Jennings, supra
note 3.
5 Wright v. Southwest Airlines Co., 315 Neb. 911, 2 N.W.3d 186 (2024).
6 See, Konsul v. Asensio, 316 Neb. 874, 7 N.W.3d 619 (2024); Wright v.
Southwest Airlines Co., supra note 5.
7 Cain v. Custer Cty. Bd. of Equal., 315 Neb. 809, 1 N.W.3d 512 (2024).
8 Fountain II v. Douglas Cty. Bd. of Equal., 315 Neb. 633, 999 N.W.2d 135
(2024); In re Guardianship of Benjamin E., 289 Neb. 693, 856 N.W.2d 447
(2014).

- 901 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
317 Nebraska Reports
SEDIGHI v. SCHNACKEL ENGINEERS
Cite as 317 Neb. 890
settled purpose. 9 The term “unreasonable” can be applied to a
decision only when the evidence presented leaves no room for
differences of opinion among reasonable minds. 10
ANALYSIS
At trial before the small claims court and on appeal before
the district court, Schnackel Engineers did not dispute that
under 20 C.F.R. § 656.12(b), it would ordinarily be respon-
sible for attorney fees related to the preparation and filing
of an application for permanent labor certification. 11 Instead,
Schnackel Engineers asserted that it was not responsible for
the Michigan immigration attorney’s fees because it never
agreed to file an application for permanent labor certifica-
tion and Sedighi pursued that course on his own, outside of
its “control.”
Although 	the 	small 	claims 	court 	rejected 	Schnackel
Engineers’ argument, the district court found it to be meri-
torious on appeal. On its review of the record, the district
court found that the Michigan immigration attorney was solely
Sedighi’s attorney and that 20 C.F.R. § 656.12(b) does not
require an employer to pay an attorney to represent an alien.
The district court erred in this finding.
As we set forth above, a judgment rendered by a small
claims court is reviewed for error appearing on the record, 12
wherein the appellate court’s inquiry is limited to whether
the decision conforms to law, is supported by competent evi-
dence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable. 13
9 Uhrich & Brown Ltd. Part. v. Middle Republican NRD, 315 Neb. 596, 998
N.W.2d 41 (2023); In re Guardianship of Benjamin E., supra note 8.
10 Fountain II v. Douglas Cty. Bd. of Equal., supra note 8.
11 Cf. Magtoles v. United Staffing Registry, Inc., 665 F. Supp. 3d 326
(E.D.N.Y. 2023) (denying summary judgment of plaintiff’s state law
claims involving violation of 20 C.F.R. § 656.12(b)).
12 See §§ 25-2733 and 25-2807. See, also, § 25-1911. Cf. State v. Jennings,
supra note 3.
13 Wright v. Southwest Airlines Co., supra note 5.

- 902 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
317 Nebraska Reports
SEDIGHI v. SCHNACKEL ENGINEERS
Cite as 317 Neb. 890
In its judgment, the district court stated this correct standard
for its review and framed its conclusion as finding “error on
the record.” But in substance, the district court did not apply
this standard.
The only issue in the small claims court was whether
Schnackel Engineers was responsible for the Michigan immi-
gration attorney’s fees for preparing and filing the permanent
labor certification application under 20 C.F.R. § 656.12(b).
That DOL regulation provides in relevant part:
An employer must not seek or receive payment of any
kind for any activity related to obtaining permanent labor
certification, including payment of the employer’s attor-
neys’ fees, whether as an incentive or inducement to fil-
ing, or as a reimbursement for costs incurred in preparing
or filing a permanent labor certification application . .
. . An alien may pay his or her own costs in connection
with a labor certification, including attorneys’ fees for
representation of the alien, except that where the same
attorney represents both the alien and the employer, such
costs shall be borne by the employer. 14
In the small claims court, Sedighi argued that he was
entitled to reimbursement of the attorney fees because the
Michigan immigration attorney prepared and filed an applica-
tion for permanent labor certification. Schnackel Engineers
argued that it was not responsible for the attorney fees because
it did not agree to such preparation and filing. The small
claims court found Schnackel Engineers was responsible for
the Michigan immigration attorney’s fees. Two statutory pro-
visions are particularly relevant to our review of the district
court’s judgment. First, “All matters in the Small Claims
Court shall be tried to the court without a jury.” 15 And second,
“Upon the trial of questions of fact by the court, it shall not be
necessary for the court to state its finding, except, generally,
14 20 C.F.R. § 656.12(b).
15 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2805 (Reissue 2016).

- 903 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
317 Nebraska Reports
SEDIGHI v. SCHNACKEL ENGINEERS
Cite as 317 Neb. 890
for the plaintiff or defendant, unless one of the parties request
it . . . .” 16
[9,10] Where neither party requests that the trial court make
specific findings of fact and conclusions of law, if there is a
conflict in the evidence, the appellate court in reviewing the
judgment rendered will presume that the controverted facts
were decided in favor of the successful party. 17 We have
referred to this principle as the “general verdict rule”: Where
a general verdict is returned for one of the parties, and the
mental processes of the finder of fact are not tested by spe-
cial interrogatories to indicate which issue was determina-
tive of the verdict, it will be presumed that all issues were
resolved in favor of the prevailing party, and, where a single
determinative issue has been presented to the finder of fact
free from error, any error in presenting another issue will be
disregarded. 18
Rather than applying the general verdict rule, the district
court’s judgment reveals that either it presumed the small
claims court failed to consider what party or parties the
Michigan immigration attorney represented or it conducted a
review de novo on the record, as it made independent factual
determinations based upon the record and reached its own
independent conclusions with respect to the matter at issue. 19
In either situation, the district court erred by not presuming that
the small claims court found that the Michigan immigration
16 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1127 (Reissue 2016). See, also, Fee v. Fee, 223 Neb.
128, 388 N.W.2d 122 (1986); Modern Woodmen of America v. Lane, 62
Neb. 89, 86 N.W. 943 (1901).
17 Hall v. County of Lancaster, 287 Neb. 969, 846 N.W.2d 107 (2014),
overruled on other grounds, Davis v. State, 297 Neb. 955, 902 N.W.2d 165
(2017); Foiles v. Midwest Street Rod Assn. of Omaha, 254 Neb. 552, 578
N.W.2d 418 (1998).
18 See de Vries v. L & L Custom Builders, 310 Neb. 543, 968 N.W.2d 64
(2021).
19 See Medicine Creek v. Middle Republican NRD, 296 Neb. 1, 892 N.W.2d
74 (2017).

- 904 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
317 Nebraska Reports
SEDIGHI v. SCHNACKEL ENGINEERS
Cite as 317 Neb. 890
attorney represented both Sedighi and Schnackel Engineers and
proceeding to review the record for competent evidence in sup-
port of that finding. To the contrary, our review of the record
of the small claims court shows this finding was supported by
competent evidence.
The record shows that Schnackel Engineers was aware that
an employment-based visa was the method by which Sedighi
could obtain a green card and that it viewed the position
it offered to Sedighi as full-time, permanent employment.
Indeed, it had a “fear of losing [Sedighi] because of immigra-
tion laws,” and its employment offer required Sedighi to “pur-
sue [his] green card through whatever means necessary . . .
in order to achieve full resident status.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The Merriam-Webster dictionary provides that “whatever”
means “any” and “all.” 20 Thus, by the unambiguous terms of
the offer letter, Sedighi was obligated to pursue his green card
through any and all means necessary and was not limited to
pursuing his green card via a NIW.
The record also shows that Schnackel Engineers substan-
tively and actively participated in the preparation and fil-
ing of the application for permanent labor certification. 21 In
February and March 2023, it completed PERM paperwork,
directed Sedighi to provide the completed paperwork to the
Michigan immigration attorney, and created a “subaccount”
to facilitate the Michigan immigration attorney’s filing of
the application. Without Schnackel Engineers’ affirmative
20 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 1423 (11th ed. 2020).
21 Cf., City of Scottsbluff v. Waste Connections of Neb., 282 Neb. 848, 809
N.W.2d 725 (2011); Havelock Bank of Lincoln v. Bargen, 212 Neb. 70,
321 N.W.2d 432 (1982); Hagerbaumer v. Hagerbaumer Brothers, Inc.,
208 Neb. 613, 305 N.W.2d 4 (1981); Walsh v. Lunney, 75 Neb. 337, 106
N.W. 447 (1905); Bowman v. Wright, 65 Neb. 661, 91 N.W. 580 (1902),
affirmed on rehearing 65 Neb. 666, 92 N.W. 580. See, generally, 17A
C.J.S. Contracts §§ 551 at 484 (“parties have the right to and are free to
amend their contract”) and 552 at 486 (“[a]ny contract, however made or
evidenced, can be discharged or modified by a subsequent agreement of
the parties”) (2020).

- 905 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
317 Nebraska Reports
SEDIGHI v. SCHNACKEL ENGINEERS
Cite as 317 Neb. 890
participation in the PERM process, the Michigan immigra-
tion attorney would not have been able to prepare and file an
application with the DOL.
There is competent evidence in the record that supports
finding Schnackel Engineers provided the Michigan immigra-
tion attorney authority to file the application for permanent
labor certification on its behalf and that in doing so, the attor-
ney represented Schnackel Engineers. Accordingly, the district
court erred in finding error on the record of the small claims
court and in vacating the judgment of the small claims court
and entering judgment on behalf of Schnackel Engineers.
CONCLUSION
Competent evidence supports the judgment of the small
claims court. Therefore, it should have been affirmed. Hence,
we reverse the judgment of the district court and direct the dis-
trict court to reinstate the judgment of the small claims court.
Reversed and remanded with direction.