Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff was a passenger in a car that a law enforcement officer was pursuing when the driver lost control of the car, and the car flipped over. Plaintiff sued County for injuries he sustained during the vehicular pursuit pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 13-911, which authorizes compensation for damages to an "innocent third party" who is injured by such a pursuit. The district court held in favor of Plaintiff and awarded damages to Plaintiff. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the district court did not err in (1) the majority of its evidentiary rulings, and although the court erred in admitting hearsay testimony, the error was harmless; (2) finding that Plaintiff was an "innocent third party"; and (3) calculating County's liability under the relevant statutes. View "Werner v. County of Platte" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to one count of theft by deception in the amount of $500 to $1500 pursuant to a plea bargain. Appellant appealed, contending that the district court erred in failing to inform him that he had a right to a presentence investigation and that, therefore, his waiver of his statutory right to a presentence investigation was not made freely, voluntarily, knowingly, or intelligently. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) under a review of the totality of the circumstances, Appellant was informed of his right to a presentence investigation, was questioned as to whether he had been threatened or promised anything for his decision to waive this right, and was expressly asked if his waiver was made freely and voluntarily; and (2) therefore, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Appellant's waiver was made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. View "State v. Qualls" on Justia Law

Following a bench trial, Appellant was convicted of two counts of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance and two counts of failure to affix a drug tax stamp. Appellant appealed, arguing that probable cause did not exist to stop his vehicle and that consent to search the vehicle was not properly given because of the illegal stop. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the conviction and sentences for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, as (i) the law enforcement officer properly stopped Appellant for violating Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-6,142, and (ii) because at the conclusion of the lawful stop, the officer asked if he could search Appellant's car and Appellant gave consent, there was no violation of Appellant's rights, and the evidence was properly admitted at trial; but (2) reversed Defendant's conviction and sentences for failing to affix a drug tax stamp, as the record contained no evidence regarding the absence of drug tax stamps. Remanded with directions to dismiss the charges for failure to affix a tax stamp. View "State v. Magallanes" on Justia Law

Upon the dissolution of the parties' marriage, the district court entered an order requiring Husband to pay Wife temporary alimony. While Husband's appeal was pending, Wife filed a motion asking the district court to award her temporary alimony pending the appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the district court filed an order awarding Wife temporary alimony. The district court later found Husband to be in contempt for failing to pay temporary alimony and for failing to appear at the contempt hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court had jurisdiction to order Husband to pay temporary alimony when the appeal of the decree of dissolution was pending, and therefore the order was not void, and (2) Husband was subject to contempt for violating the order to pay temporary alimony. View "Spady v. Spady" on Justia Law

After an amended petition was filed in the juvenile court alleging the Candice H., a juvenile, had possessed marijuana and drug paraphernalia, the juvenile court placed Candice under the supervision of a probation officer for an open-ended period of time. The next year, the juvenile court ordered that its jurisdiction should be terminated because Candice had reached the age of majority. The court also ordered that the record be sealed. The State appealed, contending that the juvenile court erred in ordering that the record be sealed without giving prior notice to the county attorney and without determining that Candice had satisfactorily completed her probation. The Supreme Court vacated the order sealing Candice's juvenile record, holding that the juvenile court erred in ordering that the record be sealed because (1) the order did not include a finding that Candice had satisfactorily completed her probation, and (2) the county attorney was not given the required notice of the proceeding to seal the record. View "In re Candice H." on Justia Law

On October 7, the State filed an amended information in Butler County charging Appellant with one count of attempted first degree sexual assault and one count of second-offense violation of a protection order. Appellant was convicted of both offenses. On September 4, an information filed in Platte County charged Appellant with attempted first degree sexual assault. Appellant pled guilty. Appellant subsequently sought habeas corpus relief challenging the Butler County convictions, alleging (1) he was being illegally detained because the amended information was fatally defective, (2) his counsel in the Butler County case was ineffective, and (3) he was innocent of the charges. The district court denied the habeas corpus petition and Appellant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Appellant's application to proceed in forma pauperis on the ground that the legal positions asserted in the petition for writ of habeas corpus which he sought to file were frivolous. View "Peterson v. Houston" on Justia Law

Mother's two Indian children, both minors, were placed in foster care by a separate juvenile court. After the State filed a motion to terminate parental rights, the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska sought to transfer the proceedings to the Omaha Tribal Court pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act and the Nebraska Indian Child Welfare Act. The juvenile court denied the request, finding that the motions were filed at an "advanced stage" of the juvenile proceedings. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that there was no basis for a determination that the motions to transfer these cases to tribal court were filed at an advanced stage of the proceedings to terminate parental rights, and therefore, the court of appeals erred in affirming the separate juvenile court's denial of the motions on this ground. Remanded with directions to sustain the motions to transfer the cases to the Omaha Tribal Court. View "In re Zylena R." on Justia Law

On October 22, 2010, an amended petition was filed in juvenile court alleging improper care of two minor children. After twice continuing the permanency planning hearing because opposing counsel objected to reports offered by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the juvenile court held a third attempt at a review and permanency hearing on January 9, 2012. The court again sustained opposing counsel's objection to DHHS' reports because they were offered without notice. In its order, the juvenile court ordered DHHS to pay opposing counsel's costs associated with the preparation and attendance of the January 9 hearing as well as the next scheduled hearing. The Supreme Court vacated the January 9, 2012 contempt order and remanded, holding (1) the juvenile court's inherent power to issue contempt orders is subject to the contemnor's receiving proper notice and an opportunity to be heard when the contempt is not committed in the presence of the court; and (2) in this instance, the juvenile court abused its discretion by summarily imposing a sanction for conduct that did not occur in its presence. View "In re Samantha L." on Justia Law

Bank sued five guarantors (Guarantors) following defaults on the underlying notes. During discovery, Bank tendered requests for admissions to each of Guarantors, including a request to admit the specific amount due on the note for principal, accrued interest, and a prepayment fee. Ultimately, the district court (1) entered judgment in favor of the Bank with respect to the principal and accrued interest due from Guarantors, but (2) based in part on Guarantors' answers to the requests for admissions, determined Bank was not entitled to prepayment fees. The Supreme Court reversed the rulings in each case on the prepayment fee issue, holding that the district court erred when it treated the Guarantors' answers to Bank's requests for admissions as denials rather than admissions that Guarantors owed prepayment fees. Remanded. View "U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Peterson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff corporation and two of its officers brought suit against Defendant, a brokerage firm, to recover damages that allegedly resulted when the president of the corporation independently engaged the brokerage firm's services to locate and lease new office space while the corporation was still liable under a previous lease, which it later breached. Plaintiff sued under theories of inducement, tortious interference, and negligence. The district court concluded that the brokerage company was not liable to Plaintiff for assisting the president to enter into a new lease while knowing that the corporation remained liable under a previous lease. The Supreme Court affirmed, either not reaching Appellants' assignments of error or finding them to be without merit. View "Pro. Mgmt. Midwest, Inc. v. Lund Co." on Justia Law