Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

James Sawyer was involved in two drive-by shootings in Omaha, Nebraska, in February 2019. On February 5, Sawyer, as a passenger in a vehicle driven by Adonus Moses, fired multiple shots from a Draco pistol, injuring Erica Robinson and killing Elijah Foster. Sawyer was charged with seven counts, including first-degree murder and use of a deadly weapon. On February 8, Sawyer again fired the Draco at Aldron Thompson and his brother, missing both. He was charged with five counts, including attempted assault and use of a deadly weapon.The State moved to consolidate the two cases for trial, which the district court granted. A jury trial ensued, and Sawyer was found guilty on all charges. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder conviction and additional consecutive sentences for the other convictions. Sawyer appealed, arguing improper joinder and ineffective assistance of counsel.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that the two cases were sufficiently related to be joined for trial, as both involved Sawyer using a Draco in drive-by shootings within a short time frame and geographical proximity. The court found no prejudice to Sawyer from the joinder, as the evidence against him was overwhelming in both cases.Regarding ineffective assistance of counsel, the court found that Sawyer's claims failed. The court determined that counsel's performance was not deficient in failing to move to suppress cell phone and Facebook evidence, as Sawyer had abandoned the phone and the Facebook warrant was supported by probable cause. Additionally, the court found no prejudice from counsel's failure to object to certain evidence, as it was cumulative or not hearsay. Finally, the court found no basis for a competency evaluation before sentencing, as there was no indication of incompetence post-trial. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences. View "State v. Sawyer" on Justia Law

A resident taxpayer of Omaha challenged the City of Omaha's contract for residential solid waste collection, alleging it was an illegal expenditure of public funds and violated the Integrated Solid Waste Management Act (ISWMA). The contract, awarded to FCC Environmental Services Nebraska, LLC (FCC-Nebraska), included a yard waste sticker program where residents could purchase stickers for additional yard waste disposal.The district court for Douglas County granted summary judgment in favor of the City and FCC-Nebraska, dismissing the taxpayer's claims. The court found that the City acted within its discretion in seeking a postopening bid clarification from FCC-Spain (the original bidder) to standardize the unit price for yard waste stickers, which did not materially alter the bid or give FCC an unfair advantage. The court also determined that the yard waste sticker fee charged by FCC did not require voter approval under § 13-2020(4) of the ISWMA, as the fee was charged by and paid to the contractor, not the City.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. It held that the City did not act in bad faith or with favoritism in seeking the bid clarification and that the clarification did not result in a material variance from FCC's original bid. The court also agreed that the voter approval requirement in § 13-2020(4) did not apply to the yard waste sticker fee, as it was governed by § 13-2020(5), which allows contractors to charge service rates without voter approval. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the taxpayer's motion to amend the complaint to add a new theory of invalidity based on the identity of the contracting party. View "Johnson v. City of Omaha" on Justia Law

The State of Nebraska charged Paul Douglas Brooks with two counts of first-degree sexual assault and one count of third-degree sexual assault of a child, all involving the same victim, H.S. Brooks filed a plea in abatement, which was overruled, and he was arraigned. The State later filed a notice of intent to offer evidence of other sexual assaults by Brooks under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-414, identifying additional victims. Brooks requested time to take depositions of these witnesses, which delayed the hearing on the State’s notice.The district court for Furnas County overruled Brooks’ motion for absolute discharge based on statutory speedy trial grounds. Brooks conceded that the time related to his plea in abatement was excludable but argued that no other periods should be excluded. The court rejected the State’s argument that the period from arraignment to the status hearing should be excluded but agreed that the time Brooks requested to take depositions was excludable. The court found that Brooks’ request for time to take depositions constituted good cause under § 29-1207(4)(f) and excluded the period from May 23, 2024, to mid-July 2024, extending the trial deadline to October 26, 2024.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s findings and affirmed the decision. The court agreed that the period from May 23 to mid-July was excludable for good cause, as Brooks requested this time to complete depositions. This exclusion extended the trial deadline beyond the date Brooks filed his motion for absolute discharge and the scheduled trial date. Therefore, the district court did not err in overruling Brooks’ motion for absolute discharge. View "State v. Brooks" on Justia Law

Marjorie Johnson, the owner of farmland, was denied a permit by the Village of Polk to drill a new well for irrigating her farmland. She sought a declaratory judgment that the ordinance requiring a permit for new wells in the village’s wellhead protection area was invalid, arguing it was preempted by the Nebraska Ground Water Management and Protection Act (NGWMPA) and violated state law by interfering with her existing farming operations.The district court for Polk County denied her request for declaratory judgment and her petition in error. The court found that the ordinance was not preempted by the NGWMPA, as the Legislature intended for both local natural resources districts (NRDs) and municipalities to have control over water sources. The court also found that the ordinance did not interfere with Johnson’s existing farming operations, as the land was previously irrigated through an agreement with a neighbor, and it was the dispute with the neighbor, not the ordinance, that resulted in the land being dryland.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the ordinance was enacted under the necessary statutory grant of power to the municipality, as the Wellhead Protection Area Act and other statutes granted villages the authority to adopt controls to protect public water supplies. The court also found no field or conflict preemption by the NGWMPA, as the Legislature did not intend to deprive municipalities of their statutory authority to require permits for wells within wellhead protection areas. Finally, the court agreed that the ordinance did not interfere with Johnson’s existing farming operations, as the existing farming at the time of the permit request was dryland farming, and it was the neighbor’s actions, not the ordinance, that prevented irrigation. View "Johnson v. Village of Polk" on Justia Law

William C. Dugan sought a harassment protection order against Steve Sorensen, alleging that Sorensen attacked him in the driveway of Sorensen's home while Dugan was picking up his children. Dugan claimed Sorensen knocked him down, banged his head into the pavement, and later threatened him while he was in his car waiting for the police. Sorensen argued that he intervened to protect his wife, Natalie Sorensen, who he believed was being assaulted by Dugan. The incident was partially captured on a neighbor's security camera.The district court for Douglas County issued an ex parte harassment protection order in favor of Dugan. At a subsequent show cause hearing, the court reviewed the evidence, including the security footage and testimonies from Dugan, Sorensen, Natalie, and the older child of Dugan and Natalie. The court found Dugan's testimony more credible and determined that Sorensen's actions constituted harassment. The court affirmed the protection order, finding that Sorensen's conduct involved multiple acts of harassment.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo. The court held that a course of conduct for harassment protection orders requires at least two separate acts of harassment. The court found that Sorensen's physical assault on Dugan in the driveway and the subsequent verbal threats while Dugan was in his car constituted two separate acts of harassment. The court also addressed Sorensen's justification defense, noting that justification is an affirmative defense in criminal prosecutions and certain civil actions but not explicitly in civil protection order proceedings. The court affirmed the district court's decision to issue the harassment protection order, concluding that Sorensen's actions met the statutory definition of harassment and that his justification defense was not applicable. View "Dugan v. Sorensen" on Justia Law

In this case, Matthew M. Jaksha and Jessica L. Jaksha's marriage was dissolved in 2017, with a stipulated decree awarding joint legal and physical custody of their minor child. In 2020, a modification awarded Matthew sole legal custody, while Jessica retained decision-making over the child's religious upbringing. In 2021, another modification granted Matthew sole legal and physical custody, with a tiered parenting plan for Jessica's supervised and unsupervised parenting time, contingent on her sobriety.Jessica filed a complaint to modify in 2023, citing her sustained sobriety, but the district court dismissed it, finding no material change in circumstances. Jessica did not appeal this decision but instead filed a complaint in 2024 to vacate or amend the 2021 modification order, arguing it was not a final order and should be relitigated.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the 2021 modification order was final as it resolved all issues raised in the modification pleadings. The court also found that the district court correctly refused to vacate or modify the order, as Jessica's complaint was filed long after the term in which the order was entered, and she failed to establish grounds under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2001(4) or any equitable basis for vacating the order. The court also declined to consider Jessica's argument that the order was void as against public policy, as it was raised for the first time on appeal. View "Jaksha v. Jaksha" on Justia Law

A minor child, through his mother, filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against an obstetrician, the clinic where the obstetrician was employed, and the hospital where he was born. The child suffered an obstetric brachial plexus injury during birth. The district court excluded the package insert for Pitocin used during the birth, ruling it was hearsay and lacked foundation. The child also argued that the court erred in not giving his requested jury instructions and giving other erroneous instructions, which he did not object to at trial.The District Court for Douglas County ruled in favor of the defendants. The jury found that the child had not met his burden of proof and rendered a general verdict for the defendants. The child appealed, arguing that the jury instructions were erroneous and prejudicial.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the district court committed plain error by instructing the jury that it could not determine the standard of care from the testimony of expert witnesses. This erroneous instruction was on a vital issue and misled the jury, prejudicially affecting a substantial right of the child. The court held that the error was of such a nature that to leave it uncorrected would cause a miscarriage of justice or result in damage to the integrity, reputation, and fairness of the judicial process.The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, without addressing the remaining assignments of error, as they were unnecessary to adjudicate the case and might be tried differently on remand. View "J.R.M.B. v. Alegent Creighton Health" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute where Pranay Bajjuri and others (appellees) sued Anand Karney, Sudha Karney (appellants), and others for unjust enrichment, fraud, and civil conspiracy. The appellees alleged that the appellants fraudulently induced them to invest in various limited liability companies (LLCs) for purchasing and operating rental properties, but the appellants diverted the investments for personal gain. The appellants failed to produce financial and organizational documents related to the LLCs during discovery, leading to the current appeal.The District Court for Douglas County issued a scheduling order for discovery and trial. Despite repeated requests and a court order to compel, the appellants did not produce the required documents. The appellees filed a motion for sanctions, seeking default judgment and attorney fees. The district court found that the appellants had repeatedly violated discovery rules and had been previously warned of sanctions. The court granted the motion for sanctions, entering a default judgment of $2,201,385.82 and awarding attorney fees of $180,645.68 against the appellants.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and upheld the district court's decision. The court found that the appellants had frustrated the discovery process and failed to comply with the court's order to compel. The court determined that the appellants, as members and managers of the LLCs, had the ability to obtain and produce the required documents but did not do so. The court concluded that the sanctions of default judgment and attorney fees were appropriate given the appellants' inexcusable recalcitrance and history of discovery abuse. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's orders, finding no abuse of discretion. View "Bajjuri v. Karney" on Justia Law

Felipe N. Gonzalez Vazquez was involved in a standoff with law enforcement officers at a residence in Lincoln, Nebraska, on August 26, 2020. Vazquez, who had locked himself in a bedroom, fired multiple gunshots during the standoff, injuring two officers and fatally wounding one. Vazquez was charged with first degree murder and other related felonies. He was found guilty on all counts by a jury and sentenced to prison.In the district court, Vazquez filed motions in limine to exclude testimony about his gang affiliation and the specific nature of the arrest warrants, which were granted. During the trial, Vazquez made two motions for mistrial based on alleged violations of the court's order in limine, both of which were denied. The jury returned guilty verdicts on all charges, and Vazquez was sentenced to a term of not less than 70 years nor more than life for first degree murder, along with additional consecutive sentences for the other convictions.On appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court, Vazquez argued that the district court erred in denying his motions for mistrial, admitting certain testimony, and accepting the guilty verdicts due to insufficient evidence. He also claimed cumulative error and ineffective assistance of trial counsel in 17 respects. The Nebraska Supreme Court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's rulings, determined that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and concluded that Vazquez's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel either lacked merit, were not sufficiently raised, or could not be resolved on direct appeal. Consequently, the court affirmed Vazquez's convictions and sentences. View "State v. Vasquez" on Justia Law

Tara Gentele and Christopher Gentele were involved in divorce proceedings and attempted to resolve their disputes through mediation. Christopher claimed that a settlement agreement was reached during mediation, but Tara denied this. Christopher then asked the district court to enforce the settlement agreement. The district court found that a settlement agreement had been reached and entered a dissolution decree based on its terms. The decree required Christopher to make equalization payments to Tara and to divide certain credit card rewards points between them. Christopher made the first payment and transferred the rewards points, which Tara accepted. Tara then filed an appeal, arguing that the district court erred in enforcing the settlement agreement.The district court for Lancaster County found that the parties had reached an enforceable settlement agreement during mediation and entered a dissolution decree based on that agreement. Tara accepted the benefits provided by the decree but subsequently filed an appeal challenging the enforcement of the settlement agreement.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that Tara's appeal was precluded by the acceptance of benefits rule. This rule generally prevents an appellant from accepting the benefits of a judgment and then appealing the parts of the judgment that are unfavorable. The court found that Tara's acceptance of the equalization payment and rewards points was inconsistent with her appeal. The court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the acceptance of benefits rule applied and barred Tara from challenging the decree. View "Gentele v. Gentele" on Justia Law