Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder after a jury trial relating to the disappearance of a fellow college student with whom he was last seen. The defense’s strategy at trial was to present alternative explanations for the missing person’s fate, including accidental hypothermia, and called a forensic pathologist as an expert witness. During cross-examination, the expert stated that if someone purposely placed another person in a dangerous situation where they could not return to safety, that would be considered a homicide. Trial counsel did not object or further clarify the testimony. The jury found the appellant guilty of second degree murder.Following conviction and sentencing, the appellant’s counsel filed a direct appeal, which challenged only the sufficiency of the evidence, and the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The appellant then filed a motion for postconviction relief in the District Court for Gage County, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel based mainly on the handling of the expert’s testimony. After an evidentiary hearing—including depositions of trial counsel—the district court found that counsel’s decisions about the expert’s testimony were strategic and did not amount to deficient performance. The district court denied postconviction relief.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions independently. The court held that trial counsel’s response to the expert’s testimony was a strategic decision and not objectively unreasonable. The court also found that additional claims raised for the first time on appeal could not be considered. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying postconviction relief. View "State v. Keadle" on Justia Law

A New Mexico insurance company initiated a lawsuit in Nebraska against two insurance companies, asserting claims for contribution and indemnity. One defendant, a New York insurance company, moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, while the other defendant, a surplus insurance company, challenged a default judgment and sought to file a responsive pleading. The district court in Douglas County issued separate orders: it dismissed the New York insurer with prejudice and set aside the default judgment against the other defendant, allowing additional proceedings.After the dismissal order concerning the New York insurer, the plaintiff appealed to the Nebraska Court of Appeals, which summarily dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The case returned to the district court, where the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims against the remaining defendant without prejudice. This second dismissal order did not reference the prior dismissal of the New York insurer. The plaintiff then filed another appeal, again challenging the earlier dismissal order. The Court of Appeals dismissed this second appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, citing the absence of a single judgment resolving all claims against all parties as required by Nebraska statutes and referencing the Nebraska Supreme Court’s decision in Elbert v. Keating, O’Gara. The plaintiff petitioned for further review.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that, because the district court had not entered a single written judgment adjudicating all claims and all parties, nor certified any order as final under the applicable statute, there was no final, appealable order. Therefore, the Supreme Court determined it lacked appellate jurisdiction and affirmed the dismissal of the appeal by the Court of Appeals. The court emphasized that jurisdiction cannot be created by voluntary dismissal without prejudice of unresolved claims or parties in the absence of a final judgment. View "Continental Indem. Co. v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co." on Justia Law

The case concerns a man who forcibly entered the home of his former partner, S.E., with whom he shared a child. On May 12, 2023, after their relationship had deteriorated and following multiple threats by him against S.E., he kicked in the door of the house where S.E. was staying. He struck S.E. and, when her brother Jordan attempted to intervene while armed, the defendant shot and killed Jordan. He then shot S.E. in both legs, including while she was holding their child, though the child was not physically harmed. The defendant was charged with eight felony offenses, including first degree murder (premeditated and felony murder), use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, domestic assault, burglary, and child abuse.The Washington County District Court allowed the State to introduce evidence of prior uncharged assaults by the defendant against S.E., finding this evidence inextricably intertwined with the charged crimes. The court denied the defendant’s request for a self-defense jury instruction, reasoning that he had unjustifiably placed himself in harm’s way by breaking into the residence. The court also permitted S.E. to remain in the courtroom during the trial as an essential witness. The defendant was convicted on all counts and sentenced to multiple terms of imprisonment, some to run concurrently.On direct appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence of prior assaults was properly admitted as it provided necessary context for the charged crimes. The Court found no error in the refusal to instruct on self-defense or in allowing S.E. to be present during trial, as the defendant failed to show prejudice. However, the Court held that it was error to sentence the defendant both for felony murder and for the predicate felony of burglary, and that sentences for use of a deadly weapon must be served consecutively, not concurrently. All sentences were vacated and the case was remanded for resentencing, but the convictions were affirmed. View "State v. Logan" on Justia Law

After police responded to a noise complaint, they found the defendant asleep in the driver’s seat of a running vehicle with two tires on a driveway and two tires touching a public street. Officers detected alcohol and obtained a breath sample showing a blood alcohol level of .127. The defendant admitted to drinking earlier. He was charged with driving under the influence, third offense, based on alleged prior DUI convictions.The County Court for Lancaster County initially accepted the defendant’s no contest plea, but the District Court for Lancaster County vacated the sentence, finding the plea was not properly elicited. On remand, a new plea hearing was held and several exhibits were reoffered, but the exhibits intended to show the defendant’s prior convictions were not offered or received. The County Court, mistakenly believing these exhibits were in evidence, enhanced the conviction and sentenced the defendant for a third-offense DUI. The District Court affirmed, finding the plea proper and the sentence within statutory limits.The Nebraska Court of Appeals also affirmed, holding that the defendant could not challenge the enhancement because he had not raised the issue previously and had, through defense counsel’s statements, invited any error regarding the admission of prior convictions. The appellate court treated the enhancement as falling under the invited error doctrine and declined to address whether the sentence was excessive absent proof of prior convictions.The Nebraska Supreme Court determined that plain error occurred because there was no evidence in the record establishing prior convictions to support a third-offense DUI enhancement. The Court held that the lower courts erred by enhancing and sentencing the defendant absent such proof and that the invited error doctrine did not apply. The Court vacated the sentence and remanded the case for a new enhancement and sentencing hearing. View "State v. Molina" on Justia Law

A petition was filed seeking to adjudicate a juvenile, Jerel, as having committed an act that would constitute the felony of terroristic threats under Nebraska law. The incident at issue involved Jerel, then placed in foster care with Lanslot Pyne, allegedly threatening Pyne with violence during a confrontation in the night. Pyne testified that Jerel, while holding a knife, stated he had considered ways to kill Pyne and made explicit threats to harm or kill him. Jerel presented a different account, denying the threats and claiming he was attempting to prompt a change in his placement by displaying items to Pyne.The Separate Juvenile Court of Lancaster County heard the case. On the day of the adjudication hearing, Jerel’s counsel moved to disqualify the judge and for a continuance, citing late discovery of related documents and lack of time to meet with Jerel. Both motions were denied. At trial, the court found Pyne’s testimony credible and Jerel’s not believable, ultimately adjudicating Jerel as a juvenile under the relevant statute for committing an act constituting terroristic threats. Jerel appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the denial of the continuance, and alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo, giving weight to the juvenile court’s credibility determinations. The court held that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Jerel committed an act constituting terroristic threats, as Pyne’s credible testimony established both the threats and the intent to terrorize. The court found no ineffective assistance of counsel under any applicable standard, as Jerel showed neither deficient performance nor prejudice. The denial of the continuance was also upheld, as no prejudice was demonstrated. The Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed the adjudication. View "In re Interest of Jerel S." on Justia Law

The case involves the criminal prosecution of a defendant who was convicted by a jury of second degree assault and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. The incident took place in December 2023 at an apartment complex where the defendant, after an intoxicated and unwelcome visit to his cousin’s apartment, became involved in a confrontation with a neighbor. Testimony established that the neighbor attempted to use a baseball bat to keep the defendant away, resulting in a physical altercation. The neighbor suffered multiple injuries, and there was evidence of an escalating struggle, including the neighbor retrieving a shotgun and a fight over the weapon. Both parties claimed self-defense, and the defendant testified to a different version of the events, stating that he was attacked first and responded only to defend himself.After the jury returned guilty verdicts, the District Court for Scotts Bluff County sentenced the defendant to concurrent prison terms. The defendant, represented by new counsel on appeal, challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and raised several claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel before the Nebraska Court of Appeals. The appellate brief listed alleged failures by trial counsel, such as not subpoenaing certain witnesses, failing to introduce beneficial evidence, not advising the defendant about attending a deposition, inadequately pursuing a plea deal, and poor trial preparation. However, the Court of Appeals found most claims of ineffective assistance were too vague or lacked necessary specificity in the assignments of error, except for the plea agreement issue, which could not be resolved on the record.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to convict, rejecting the self-defense claim as a matter for the jury. The court clarified that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel must be specifically stated in the assignments of error; general or vague claims are procedurally barred. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. View "State v. Rupp" on Justia Law

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a university in Nebraska instituted a policy requiring all students to be vaccinated against COVID-19 by a specified deadline, with the only exemptions allowed for medical reasons or until a vaccine received full FDA approval. Religious exemptions were not permitted. Students who failed to comply were unenrolled and barred from campus, and some had holds placed on their accounts, preventing access to transcripts. One student complied with the mandate but suffered adverse effects and was medically exempted from further doses. Another student withdrew voluntarily before the deadline.After the university enforced the mandate, several students sought injunctive relief in the District Court for Douglas County to prevent their unenrollment, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The court denied relief, finding that any contract included the Emergency Use Authorization waiver agreements and that the students breached the contract by not being vaccinated after FDA approval. An initial appeal was dismissed by the Nebraska Supreme Court for lack of a final, appealable order. The students then consolidated their actions and filed an operative complaint alleging breach of implied contract, denial of due process, conversion, negligence, and violations of the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act (NCPA). The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice and denied leave to amend.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo and found that the students plausibly alleged claims for breach of an implied contract and conversion, based on the university’s unilateral modification of conditions mid-semester and the withholding of transcripts. The court affirmed the dismissal of the negligence and NCPA claims, finding them preempted by the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, and held that the due process claim was abandoned on appeal. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings on the breach of contract and conversion claims. View "Ramaekers v. Creighton University" on Justia Law

The case involves a woman, M.S., who was the subject of a petition filed by the State in May 2024, alleging she was mentally ill and dangerous under Nebraska law. The petition was supported by statements from M.S.’ daughter, who described recent concerning behavior, including M.S. bringing a gun to her daughter’s home, appearing paranoid, and exhibiting signs of being out of touch with reality. M.S. was admitted to a psychiatric facility pending commitment proceedings, and a hearing was held before the Mental Health Board of the Fourth Judicial District. During the proceedings, M.S. was represented by counsel and objected to certain testimony on confrontation and hearsay grounds.The Mental Health Board overruled M.S.’ motion for a continuance and proceeded with the commitment hearing, where it heard testimony from a psychiatrist, M.S.’ daughter, and M.S. herself. The Board found, by clear and convincing evidence, that M.S. suffered from bipolar I disorder, manic with psychosis, and was dangerous to herself and others. The Board ordered inpatient treatment and authorized forced medication. M.S. appealed to the District Court for Douglas County, arguing that her rights to confrontation were violated, that inadmissible hearsay was admitted, and that the evidence was insufficient to support her commitment. The district court affirmed the Board’s decision, ruling that any errors in admitting certain evidence were harmless because the facts were otherwise established in the record.On further appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s decision. It held that confrontation rights under both the U.S. and Nebraska Constitutions, as extended by statute to mental health commitment proceedings, are trial rights that do not apply to pretrial hearings. The court further found that the challenged statements by family members were admissible under the medical purpose exception to the hearsay rule. The court concluded that clear and convincing evidence supported the findings that M.S. was mentally ill and dangerous, and that the treatment ordered was the least restrictive alternative. The district court’s order was affirmed. View "In re Interest of M.S." on Justia Law

Two brothers operated a farming and cattle partnership, with one managing the finances and records and the other handling outside operations. The financial brother, assisted by his daughter, maintained control over the partnership’s handwritten ledgers and inventory records, while the other brother relied on the information provided. Over several years, the managing brother made false entries in the ledgers, diverted partnership income into personal accounts, and concealed certain ownership interests in partnership assets from his brother. Suspicious discrepancies surfaced when the outside-operating brother noticed substantial errors affecting his reported net worth, prompting him to seek dissolution of the partnership and to sue for damages.The District Court for Thurston County conducted a bench trial, hearing evidence from the parties and expert witnesses. It found that the managing brother and his daughter had exclusive control over the partnership’s finances and intentionally concealed information. The court concluded that the outside-operating brother could not reasonably have discovered the wrongdoing earlier, given his lack of access to original records and his trust in the managing brother. The court awarded damages to the plaintiff under several theories, including breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent concealment, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, conversion, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract, and imposed joint and several liability on both defendants.Upon appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and legal questions de novo. It held that the claims for fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment were not barred by the statute of limitations, as discovery of the fraud occurred within the allowed period. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s determinations regarding liability, damages, and the denial of post-trial motions, upholding the judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The court specifically affirmed the joint and several liability for both defendants and the calculation of damages, rejecting the appellants’ arguments regarding settlements, contract defenses, and the statute of limitations. View "Sebade v. Sebade" on Justia Law

A defendant was convicted following a jury trial after a fatal altercation with his father during a family gathering in Lincoln, Nebraska. The dispute began as a verbal argument, escalated when the father punched the defendant, and culminated when the defendant stabbed his father with a steak knife. The father died from a single stab wound to the chest. It was undisputed that the father initiated the physical confrontation and that the defendant was holding the knife when the fatal injury occurred. The defendant asserted multiple defenses at trial: self-defense, accident, lack of intent to kill, and sudden quarrel. Witnesses provided conflicting accounts about the defendant's statements and actions during the incident.In the District Court for Lancaster County, the defendant sought to introduce evidence of his father's history of violence and abuse, arguing it was relevant to his claim of self-defense. The court limited the admissible evidence to acts occurring within 10 years of the incident, citing remoteness and concerns of unfair prejudice. The court also refused to instruct the jury on unintentional manslaughter, finding that the evidence did not warrant such an instruction. After deliberation, the jury found the defendant guilty of first-degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and he was sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment.Reviewing the case, the Nebraska Supreme Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of older acts, as remoteness affects weight, not admissibility, and the court properly balanced probative value against prejudice. The refusal to instruct on unintentional manslaughter was affirmed because the evidence supported intentional killing. The court found sufficient evidence to sustain both convictions. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were rejected where the record was sufficient to do so; other claims were not addressed due to inadequate specificity or insufficient record. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "State v. Kruger" on Justia Law