In 2018, an Omaha apartment complex closed amid code complaints, forcing tenants to move; after reopening in 2021, its owner pursued a lawsuit against the city, but a 2026 appeals ruling rejected the claims

A federal appeals court has rejected all civil rights claims filed by the owner of an Omaha apartment complex against city officials. The decision upholds the dismissal of a lawsuit that began after the city closed the building over code violations in 2018. The ruling was issued on Friday, 6 November 2026, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. It upheld a District of Nebraska decision that dismissed claims brought by AB Realty, LLC, and the property owners, Kay and Janea Anderson. The legal dispute began in 2018 when Omaha city inspectors carried out a search warrant at the Yale Park Apartment Complex. They reported serious health and safety problems that forced tenants to leave the building. After carrying out major repairs, AB Realty reopened the complex in 2021. The company then sued city inspectors Scott Lane and Kevin Mulcahy, housing advocates and the city itself. It claimed that officials had violated its rights under the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Writing for the unanimous appeals panel, Circuit Judge L. Steven Kobes said the property owners had failed to prove that officials violated their constitutional rights. He found that the original search warrant was still supported by enough evidence and that the owners had not provided enough legal detail to support their claims about due process and property rights.

Ruling on search warrant and probable cause

The main part of AB Realty’s appeal challenged the search warrant used for the 2018 inspection under the Fourth Amendment. The property owners argued that city housing inspector Scott Lane included false information in his written request for the warrant. This included claims that officials had asked for permission to enter the building and been refused, that police had been called to the complex, and that a gas leak had caused an explosion. Under a federal legal rule established in Franks v. Delaware, a search warrant can be ruled invalid if an officer knowingly or carelessly includes false information that is needed to show there is enough reason to carry out a search. However, the Eighth Circuit judges ruled that even if the disputed statements were removed, the rest of the warrant application still contained enough evidence of serious building code violations to justify the inspection. “Even excluding the information disputed by AB Realty, the warrant application established probable cause for the inspection warrant,” the court stated in its written decision. The court also rejected claims that the city had broken Nebraska inspection laws by failing to ask for voluntary permission to enter before requesting a search warrant. The judges explained that breaking a state procedure does not automatically mean that officials have violated federal constitutional rights under Section 1983.

Deficiencies in due process and takings claims

The Eighth Circuit also rejected AB Realty’s claims under the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects due process rights, and the Fifth Amendment, which protects property owners against certain government takings. The property owners claimed that city officials had made several mistakes. These included closing the entire 60-unit complex instead of shutting down only individual apartments, putting up warning signs incorrectly, delaying approval of repairs and making negative comments about the owners to private contractors. The court described these claims as “scattershot allegations”. It said the owners had not clearly explained which officials were responsible for each action or exactly which constitutional rights had been violated. “Since AB Realty has failed to identify what constitutionally protected interests are at stake, we cannot assess what process was constitutionally due,” the appeals court stated. On the Fifth Amendment claim, the judges pointed out that the City of Omaha had not taken ownership of the land or seized it for public use. This meant there had been no physical taking of the property. The panel also said AB Realty had failed to make its case under the legal rules that apply when government regulations reduce the value or use of private property.

Resolution of lower court proceedings

The Eighth Circuit’s decision, issued under docket number 25-2082, brings the federal court case linked to the 2018 closure to an end. The first motions in the case were handled by the late U.S. District Judge Laurie Smith Camp. She partly dismissed the claims and paused the federal case while state criminal charges linked to the building’s conditions were being considered against Kay Anderson. After a state trial court found Anderson guilty of some misdemeanor offences, U.S. Chief District Judge Robert F. Rossiter Jr. dismissed the remaining federal claims. This led AB Realty to appeal the decision. The appeals panel concluded that without proof of an underlying constitutional violation, neither the city nor its individual officials could be held legally responsible under Section 1983. The decision brings the civil lawsuit to a final close.