Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Articles Posted in May, 2011
by
Defendant Roy Ellis was convicted of first-degree murder in connection with the killing of a 12-year old girl. For this, he was sentenced to death. Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence to the Supreme Court. Although many issues were presented on appeal, the primary issue for the Court to decide was whether the trial court erred by admitting certain evidence of Defendant's "prior bad acts," and whether that evidence prejudiced him. Defendant argued that the district court erred by allowing evidence of prior sexual assaults to his stepdaughters, and abused its discretion by denying two mistrial requests when that evidence was ultimately admitted. The Supreme Court reviewed the record and concluded that Defendant was not prejudiced by the admission of the evidence. The Court found no merit to his other claims, and affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence.

by
In 2008, Appellant Mauro Yos-Chiguil pled nolo contendere to murder and assault charges. The Court of Appeals dismissed his direct appeal as untimely. Appellant unsuccessfully sought relief under the state's immigration advisement statute. Appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court for post-conviction relief. He argued that the district court denied his petition without an evidentiary hearing. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to review most of Appellant's claims because they were included in his "untimely" appeal. The only claim the Court could review pertained to his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The Court believed that claim alleged sufficient facts to warrant an evidentiary hearing. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings.

by
The Lancaster County Mental Health Board (Board) determined that D.H. was a âdangerous sex offenderâ within the meaning of the Sex Offender Commitment Act (SOCA) and should be committed for inpatient treatment. The determination was affirmed on appeal to the district court. D.H. appealed, arguing that the district court erred in affirming the Boardâs order for multiple reasons. The Supreme Court found that the evidence presented before the Board and the district court sufficient to support D.H.âs commitment. The Court affirmed the order of the Board and decision of the district court.

by
In the early 1990âs, a jury found A.M. guilty of first-degree sexual assault, and the court sentenced him to prison. Shortly before his release in 2008, the State filed a petition under the Sex Offender Commitment Act (SOCA) to have A.M. declared a dangerous sex offender and committed to inpatient care. The Mental Health Board (Board) found by clear and convincing evidence that A.M. was a dangerous sex offender but that neither voluntary hospitalization nor other treatment alternatives would prevent him from reoffending. A.M. appealed the Boardâs decision to the district court, âasserting a litany of constitutional and evidentiary errors.â The district court rejected A.M.âs claims, and affirmed the Boardâs decision to have A.M. committed. After a thorough review of the Boardâs deliberations and the district courtâs record, the Supreme Court found many of A.M.âs issues raised on appeal meritless. However, the Court remanded the case to the Board for further evidentiary findings for the record.

by
Nebraska law provides that a court may order any non-exempt property of a judgment debtor to be applied toward the satisfaction of the judgment, but the Nebraska State Patrol Retirement Act (the Act) provides that annuities or benefits âwhich any person shall be entitled to receive underâ the Act are not subject to garnishment, attachment, levy or any other process of law. The issue presented for the Supreme Courtâs review was whether a plaintiff, who won a civil judgment against a former state trooper, could essentially garnish the former trooperâs retirement benefits for satisfaction. Defendant and former trooper Billy Hobbs sexually assaulted the minor child of J.M. He was sentenced to 25-30 yearsâ imprisonment. J.M. sued Mr. Hobbs and received a $325,000 judgment against him. Though incarcerated, Mr. Hobbs still received his trooper retirement pension. J.M. filed a motion for an âorder in aid of execution,â alleging that Hobbs was a judgment debtor, and he should be asked to pay the judgment against him from the money he received from his state trooper pension. Hobbs said his money was exempt, and the district court agreed, and denied J.M.âs motion. The Supreme Court affirmed the district courtâs dismissal of J.M.âs motion.

by
The Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHSS) determined that Darline Liddell-Toney was required to participate in a self-sufficiency program in order to receive benefits under the Welfare Reform Act, despite her documented disability. The district court affirmed the DHSSâ determination. Ms. Liddell-Toney appealed, arguing that the district court erred in finding that the DHSS provided sufficient evidence to prove she was not entitled to an exemption from participating in the program. The Supreme Court found that the evidence clearly indicated that Ms. Liddell-Toney was prevented from working for a substantial period due to her disability. The Court held that the district court erred when it affirmed DHSSâs determination that Ms. Liddell-Toney did not qualify for an exemption from participating in the self-sufficiency program. The Court reversed the judgment of the district court, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

by
Wilberth Martinez-Ibarra was found to be the biological father of a minor child born to Patricia Mayorga in 2007. Mr. Martinez-Ibarra and Ms. Mayorga entered into a parenting plan, and Martinez-Ibarra was ordered to pay child support and cash medical support. At that time, neither parent was employed full time, so no health insurance was available for their child. Mr. Martinez-Ibarraâs support obligation totaled $472, with an additional $77 per month as a cash medical support payment. The trial court noted that the parenting plan provided that Ms. Mayorga was responsible for the first $480 of non-reimbursed medical expenses for the child. The court credited this $480 to Mr. Martinez-Ibarra. In the end, the court adjusted Mr. Martinez-Ibarraâs total support and cash medical payments to $37 per month. The State, on behalf of Ms. Mayorga, challenged the courtâs math. The Supreme Court concluded that the district court erred when it gave Mr. Martinez-Ibarra a credit when calculating the amount of cash medical support owed. The Court reversed the decision, and remanded the case with instructions on how to recalculate Mr. Martinez-Ibarraâs support obligations.

by
L.G. Barcus & Sons, Inc. (Barcus) was held liable to the Village of Hallam under the state One-Call Notification System Act (Act) for damage to Hallamâs sanitary sewer system. The Act established a one-call notification center so that excavators can learn of any underground facilities in the area where excavation is planned. The general contractor in this case complied with the Act. Acting under its contractorâs compliance, Barcus excavated on a private landownerâs property that ultimately ruptured Hallamâs sewer lines. Among the issues Barcus raised on appeal is whether the excavator can delegate its duties under the Act to another party to escape liability. The Supreme Court found that Barcus could not rely on anotherâs compliance to excuse its own noncompliance. The Court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

by
Joseph (Joe) Mandolfo sued his brother Mario and American National Bank (ANB). At one time, Joe owned several businesses, some of which had accounts with ANB. After his brother Mario lost his job as a teacher, Joe hired Mario to work for him. Joe alleged that Mario had, with the help of ANB, wrongfully deposited checks intended for Joeâs business, into his own account. From 1995 until 2000, Joe contended that Mario embezzled about $1.2 million. The district court granted summary judgment to Joe against Mario. The court however, also granted summary judgment to ANB, concluding that a statute of limitations barred Joeâs claims against the bank. Joe appealed the grant of summary judgment to the bank. The Supreme Court concluded that Joeâs claims were governed by the Uniform Commercial Code, and as a result, were subject to a three-year statute of limitations. Joe did not discover Marioâs misappropriations until 2003. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the lower courtâs decision to dismiss Joeâs claims against the bank as untimely.

by
Meridian H. is a 3-year-old girl who had been in foster care for all but a few weeks of her life. Her presumed biological father had died before she was born, and her biological motherâs parental rights were terminated. She had two minor siblings who were adopted before she was born. Meridianâs adoptive parents, on behalf of the siblings, intervened in the juvenile courtâs proceedings to request that Meridian be placed in their home in Minnesota to keep the siblings together. Meridianâs maternal grandparents also intervened and filed a cross appeal seeking custody. The juvenile court denied the requests, and the adoptive parents and maternal grandparents appealed. The Supreme Court was ânot persuaded that it would be logical or prudent to conclude that a constitutionally protected sibling relationship somehow [rose] from the ashes of a lawfully terminated or relinquished parent-child relationship.â The Court concluded that neither the adoptive parents, the siblings nor the maternal grandparents had standing to challenge the juvenile courtâs ruling. The Court dismissed the appeals.