Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The defendant was charged with two counts of theft by shoplifting, third or subsequent offense, after stealing sunglasses from an optometrist’s office, and an additional count of resisting arrest. He ultimately pled guilty to one count of theft by shoplifting, with the other charges dismissed as part of a plea agreement. At sentencing, the court considered evidence of his prior convictions, making the current offense a Class IV felony. The defendant requested a continuance to attend inpatient substance abuse treatment, citing recent efforts to address his addiction, but the court denied the request, noting inconsistencies in his statements about substance use and skepticism about his motives.Previously, the District Court for Lancaster County accepted the defendant’s guilty plea, found him guilty, and, after an enhancement and sentencing hearing, sentenced him to a determinate term of two years’ imprisonment. The court found substantial and compelling reasons why probation was not appropriate, including the defendant’s criminal history, risk of reoffending, and doubts about his sincerity regarding treatment. The defendant appealed, arguing that the court erred in denying his motion for a continuance, failing to follow statutory requirements for sentencing, and not providing required advisements.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the denial of the continuance was not an abuse of discretion, as the defendant failed to show prejudice and had control over the timing of his treatment efforts. The court also found that the district court sufficiently stated its reasoning for denying probation and imposing imprisonment, and that any errors in failing to provide advisements were forfeited and, in any event, harmless. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "State v. Dawn" on Justia Law

The case concerns a man who was convicted of first degree murder for killing his wife in 2023. On the night of the incident, the couple went out to dinner and then to a bar, where both consumed alcohol. The husband became angry, accusing his wife of infidelity. After leaving the bar together, they returned home, where two altercations occurred. The next day, the wife was found dead on the bedroom floor, having suffered blunt force head injuries and manual strangulation. The husband admitted to hitting her but denied intending to kill her, and claimed not to remember strangling her. Forensic evidence indicated defensive wounds on the victim, and the husband’s statements and injuries were consistent with him being the aggressor.The District Court for Hamilton County held a jury trial, during which the prosecution introduced evidence of the husband’s prior acts of domestic abuse: one incident in 1997 involving his ex-wife, and another in 2015 involving the victim. The court found these prior acts were proved by clear and convincing evidence and admitted them for purposes other than propensity, such as intent and motive, providing limiting instructions to the jury. The jury found the husband guilty of first degree murder, and the court sentenced him to life imprisonment, initially granting credit for time served. The defendant appealed, challenging the admission of prior bad acts evidence, the sufficiency of the evidence for premeditation, the refusal to instruct the jury on self-defense, and the denial of a change of venue.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the prior bad acts evidence, as it was relevant for proper purposes and not unduly prejudicial. The court also found the evidence sufficient to support a finding of premeditation, and that a self-defense instruction was not warranted by the evidence. The denial of a change of venue was upheld. However, the Supreme Court found plain error in granting credit for time served against a life sentence and modified the sentence to eliminate that credit, affirming the judgment as modified. View "State v. Adams" on Justia Law

The dispute centers on the taxable valuation of two apartment complex parcels owned by the taxpayers in Sarpy County, Nebraska. For tax years 2020 and 2021, the Sarpy County Assessor set the values at $8,953,000 and $5,263,000, which the taxpayers believed were excessive. They protested these assessments to the Sarpy County Board of Equalization, providing evidence of actual rental income that was lower than market estimates. A referee for the Board recommended adopting the taxpayers’ lower valuations, and the Board accepted these recommendations, setting the values at $7,450,829 and $3,559,566.The Assessor appealed the Board’s decision to the Nebraska Tax Equalization and Review Commission (TERC). At the TERC hearing, both parties agreed on using the income approach for valuation but disagreed on whether to use actual or market-typical income figures. The Assessor relied on market data, while the Board’s referee used actual income figures verified against an online database. TERC found that the Board’s methodology was not a professionally accepted mass appraisal method and that the actual income figures were not shown to be consistent with market rates. TERC vacated and reversed the Board’s valuations, reinstating the Assessor’s original higher values.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed TERC’s decision for errors on the record. The court held that TERC erred in finding the Board’s valuations unreasonable or arbitrary, as the Board’s referee had provided a reasonable basis for using actual income figures, verified against market data. The Supreme Court reversed TERC’s decision and remanded the case with directions to affirm the Board’s lower valuations for both parcels for the relevant tax years. View "Pinnacle Enters. v. Sarpy Cty. Bd. of Equal." on Justia Law

D S Avionics Unlimited LLC owned a 1964 Piper PA-30 aircraft, which was insured under a policy issued by U.S. Specialty Insurance Company for the period between June 27, 2014, and June 27, 2015. In November 2014, DSA delivered the aircraft to a mechanic for maintenance at an Omaha airport. After a dispute between the mechanic and the airport owner, the mechanic was locked out of the hangar, and the aircraft was moved outside. When DSA attempted to retrieve the aircraft, a truck blocked its removal, and the airport owner refused to move it until storage fees were paid. The aircraft subsequently disappeared from view, and the airport owner informed authorities and the insurer that he was holding the aircraft pending payment. DSA reported the aircraft stolen and submitted a claim to USSIC, which was denied.USSIC filed suit in the District Court for Douglas County, Nebraska, seeking a declaration of noncoverage. DSA counterclaimed for breach of contract and bad faith. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court ruled in favor of USSIC, finding that DSA’s claim was not covered because there was no “accident” under the policy and that the Conversion Exclusion applied. The court also found that DSA failed to prove damages and that USSIC had an arguable basis for denial. DSA appealed, and the matter was moved to the Nebraska Supreme Court’s docket.The Nebraska Supreme Court held that DSA’s claim was within the policy’s coverage for “direct physical loss” caused by an “accident,” as defined by the policy. The court found that the airport owner’s actions constituted an “accident” from DSA’s perspective and that the Conversion Exclusion did not apply, as conceded by USSIC. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s order and remanded for further proceedings regarding USSIC’s alleged bad faith and any damages due to DSA. View "U.S. Specialty Ins. Co. v. D S Avionics" on Justia Law

A husband and wife, both real estate professionals, were married for 31 years and jointly owned several properties, including two farms, residential homes, and business assets acquired during the marriage. The couple had no children together but each had adult children from prior marriages. During the marriage, they operated a real estate business and were equal shareholders in a grain company that was dissolved before the divorce proceedings. The husband claimed certain assets as nonmarital property, including proceeds from a premarital business and an inheritance, and also sought to have debts incurred during the marriage, such as a COVID-related loan and loans taken to pay temporary spousal support, treated as marital debts. Additionally, a third party, J.E.M. Farms, LLC, intervened, claiming a one-half interest in one of the farms based on a prior agreement and financial contributions.The District Court for Antelope County conducted a bifurcated trial, first addressing the intervenor’s claim and then the dissolution action. The court entered a consent decree quieting title to half of one farm in favor of J.E.M. Farms, with all parties agreeing to pay their own attorney fees and costs. In the dissolution proceedings, the court found that the husband failed to adequately trace most of his claimed nonmarital assets, except for $260,000 from his inheritance that was used to purchase one farm. The court also found insufficient evidence to treat the COVID loan as an outstanding marital debt or to find dissipation by the wife. The court ordered both farms to be sold, with the proceeds divided equally after accounting for the nonmarital inheritance, and denied the husband’s request for attorney fees related to the intervention.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo for abuse of discretion. The court affirmed the district court’s rulings, holding that the husband did not meet his burden to trace additional nonmarital property, that the consent decree barred his claim for attorney fees related to the intervention, and that the order to sell the farms was reasonable under the circumstances. The court also found no error in the treatment of debts or in the division of property. View "White v. White" on Justia Law

The defendant in this case was on federal supervised release when he absconded, leading to the issuance of a federal warrant for his arrest. Upon being located and arrested in Nebraska, drugs were found in his possession, resulting in state drug charges. After his arrest, he was initially held in a county jail but was soon transferred to federal custody. While in federal custody, Nebraska authorities charged him with a state offense and obtained a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum to temporarily transfer him from federal to state custody for prosecution and sentencing on the state charge. He spent 638 days in the county jail under this arrangement before being sentenced in state court.The District Court for Lancaster County considered whether the defendant should receive credit against his state sentence for the time spent in county jail while he was “borrowed” from federal custody. Defense counsel requested such credit, but both the court and counsel acknowledged uncertainty about whether the time should be credited to the state or federal sentence. The district court ultimately declined to award any credit for time served, finding no clear basis in the record to attribute the time exclusively to the state case. The defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment to run consecutively to any other sentences, with no credit for time served.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the statutory and common law principles governing credit for time served, particularly in cases involving multiple sovereigns. The court held that when a defendant is borrowed from federal custody under a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, the primary jurisdiction remains with the federal authorities, and any credit for time served during that period is attributable only to the federal sentence, not the state sentence. The court affirmed the district court’s decision to deny credit for time served on the state sentence. View "State v. Leatherwood" on Justia Law

Two individuals, Kellogg and Mathiesen, formed a limited liability company (LLC) to provide in-home personal care services. Over time, disputes arose regarding ownership interests, capital contributions, and management of the company. The parties executed several agreements, including a 2017 contract transferring Mathiesen’s ownership to Kellogg due to his ineligibility as a Medicaid provider, and a 2019 contract in which Kellogg sold Mathiesen a 50% interest in the LLC’s assets. Allegations of mismanagement, misuse of company funds, and inappropriate conduct by Mathiesen led to litigation between the parties, including derivative claims and counterclaims. Kellogg also sought judicial dissolution of the LLC, citing unlawful conduct and irreconcilable differences.The District Court for Douglas County held a bench trial and found both Kellogg and Mathiesen to be 50-percent co-owners or managers of the LLC. The court denied all derivative claims and counterclaims, citing unclean hands by both parties. However, the court granted Kellogg’s application for dissolution, finding Mathiesen’s conduct oppressive and fraudulent, and ordered the appointment of a receiver to oversee the dissolution and possible sale of the company. Mathiesen appealed both the judgment and the receiver’s appointment.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the consolidated appeals, limiting its review to plain error due to deficiencies in Mathiesen’s appellate briefing. The court determined it had jurisdiction over both appeals and addressed Mathiesen’s argument that Kellogg lacked standing. The court held that Kellogg remained a member of the LLC at the time of filing her derivative action and thus had standing. Finding no plain error in the record, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment and the order appointing a receiver. View "Kellogg v. Mathiesen" on Justia Law

A county attorney in Nebraska sought to challenge the appointment of a special prosecutor in a juvenile court case. The issue arose because the county attorney’s adult daughter, who works as a caseworker for the Department of Health and Human Services, was assigned to the same juvenile case and could potentially be called as a witness. The daughter testified that she did not discuss her work with her father and that her father’s position would not affect her testimony. The deputy county attorney assigned to the case also testified to his independence in handling the matter.The Separate Juvenile Court of Lancaster County, on its own initiative, raised concerns about a possible conflict of interest due to the familial relationship. The court found that the lack of disclosure of the relationship, combined with the organizational structure of the county attorney’s office, created a conflict of interest. Relying on Nebraska ethics advisory opinions and a prior appellate decision, the court concluded that the entire county attorney’s office should be disqualified and appointed a special prosecutor under Nebraska Revised Statute § 23-1205.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the matter as an original action in quo warranto. The court held that the existence of a conflict of interest must be determined on a case-by-case basis and is personal to the attorney involved. It found no evidence that the county attorney’s professional judgment or the deputy county attorney’s independence was compromised by the daughter’s involvement. The court concluded that the appointment of a special prosecutor was unwarranted under the facts presented and ordered the ouster of the special prosecutor, reinstating the county attorney’s office to the case. View "State ex rel. Condon v. Braaten" on Justia Law

A woman died in September 2021, survived by four sons. One son, Mark, submitted a will dated September 15, 2021, naming himself as sole beneficiary and personal representative, excluding his three brothers. Another son, Michael, objected, arguing that their mother lacked testamentary capacity at the time of the will’s execution and that the will was the product of undue influence. Evidence at trial included testimony from family members, a friend who notarized the will, and a nurse who described a prior incident in which Mark threatened the decedent. Mark also sought to introduce a 2016 document (exhibit 7) showing a similar disposition of the estate, but the county court excluded it.The County Court for Douglas County found that Mark failed to prove the decedent’s testamentary capacity and that the will was the product of undue influence, ordering the estate to proceed in intestacy with Michael as personal representative. Mark appealed. The Nebraska Supreme Court, in a prior decision, reversed the exclusion of exhibit 7, holding it was relevant to show a constant and abiding scheme for property distribution, and remanded for reconsideration on the existing record, including exhibit 7.On remand, the county court admitted exhibit 7 but declined to consider new evidence, including an affidavit from the decedent’s sister. The court again found that Mark failed to prove testamentary capacity and that the will resulted from undue influence, giving little weight to exhibit 7 regarding the decedent’s state in 2021. Mark appealed again.The Nebraska Supreme Court held that the county court properly limited its review to the existing record and exhibit 7, as required by the mandate. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings that the decedent lacked testamentary capacity and that the will was the product of undue influence, and affirmed the order for intestate administration with Michael as personal representative. View "In re Estate of Walker" on Justia Law

A married couple undertook renovations on a property owned by a family trust, based on an alleged oral agreement with the original cotrustees (the couple’s relatives). The couple claimed they were to be reimbursed for the renovation costs, excluding labor, after the property was sold. The renovations expanded in scope as new issues were discovered. After the cotrustees passed away, a new trustee (also a family member) sold the property but did not reimburse the couple, citing a lack of available funds due to a line of credit and other expenses. The couple, who were also beneficiaries of the trust, requested reimbursement and a full accounting of the trust’s assets, but were denied.The District Court for Douglas County held a bench trial and found that, while there was evidence of an agreement, its terms were too indefinite to constitute a legally enforceable contract. The court also denied the couple’s claims for unjust enrichment, finding insufficient evidence that the renovations increased the property’s value or that the costs were reasonable. Claims for promissory estoppel and breach of fiduciary duty/accounting were also denied, with the court noting that it was not required to make detailed findings absent a specific request. The court further declined to hold the trustee personally liable.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s findings under a clearly erroneous standard. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the oral agreement lacked the definiteness required for contract enforcement, that the evidence did not establish unjust enrichment or reasonable value, and that the claims for promissory estoppel and breach of fiduciary duty/accounting were properly denied based on conflicting evidence. The court also found no basis for personal liability of the trustee. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Morris v. Dall" on Justia Law