Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Video King had its principal place of business in Nebraska. Melange Computer Services (Melange) had a business relationship with Video King since 2000. In 2006, Melange was acquired by Planet Bingo and became a wholly owned subsidiary of Planet Bingo. Video King subsequently filed an action against Melange and Planet Bingo (Defendants) in the district court seeking a declaration of the rights, status, and other legal obligations of the parties with respect to confidentiality agreements between the parties. The district court dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction, noting that both Planet Bingo and Melange were foreign corporations with no agent for service of process in Nebraska. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court had specific personal jurisdiction over Defendants, and therefore, it erred in granting Defendants' motion to dismiss; and (2) Nebraska's exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over Defendants in this action would not offend notions of fair play and substantial justice. View "VKGS, LLC v. Planet Bingo, LLC" on Justia Law

United States Cold Storage (Cold Storage) and Sanitary and Improvement District No. 59 of Sarpy County (SID 59) filed complaints challenging separate annexation ordinances enacted by the City of La Vista. The ordinances at issue were ordinance 1142 and ordinance 1107, together which purported to annex SID 59 in its entirety, including an industrial area. The district court found in favor of La Vista on all claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in upholding the validity of both ordinance 1007 and ordinance 1142 adopted by La Vista for the annexation of SID 59. View "U.S. Cold Storage, Inc. v. City of La Vista" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence and was sentenced to a fifteen-year license revocation, which began in 2003 and was to continue until 2018. In 2011, Defendant was found operating a motor vehicle. Defendant pleaded no contest to driving during revocation. Pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-1,197.06, the trial court ordered Defendant's license be revoked for fifteen years consecutive to the revocation that was due to end in 2018. Defendant appealed, arguing that a court cannot order a fifteen-year license revocation to be consecutive to the unexpired period of revocation under which the defendant committed the offense of driving with a revoked license. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its choice of the date for Defendant's fifteen-year revocation period to commence. View "State v. Policky" on Justia Law

The State charged Defendant with first degree felony murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and conspiracy to commit robbery stemming from the robbing and killing of a pizza delivery worker. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted on all counts. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in receiving into evidence certain DNA reports and related testimony; (2) the circuit court properly admitted Defendant's confession into evidence because the officers had probable cause to arrest him and because his confession was voluntary; (3) the circuit court correctly refused to instruct the jury regarding unlawful manslaughter; (4) sufficient evidence supported Defendant's convictions; and (5) defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to peremptorily strike one of the jurors during voir dire. View "State v. McClain" on Justia Law

Appellant was injured during the course of his employment with Employer. Appellant obtained a workers' compensation award that covered future medical treatment. Appellant subsequently underwent knee replacement surgery and sought a further award of benefits. The Workers' Compensation Court (WCC) denied the petition, finding that Appellant's knee replacement surgery was not established to be the product of the subject accident but, rather, was prompted by Appellant's preexisting degenerative knee condition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence provided sufficient competent evidence to support a finding that Appellant's knee replacement surgery was not the result of the work-related accident, and therefore, the WCC did not err in finding that Appellant's surgery was not compensable; and (2) in so holding, the WCC was not acting contrary to the original award but was enforcing the award's plain language. View "Pearson v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Milling Co." on Justia Law

The State filed four juvenile petitions against Edward, a juvenile. The juvenile court found that Edward had violated the terms of his probation in two of these cases. In all four cases, the court found it was in Edward's best interests to be committed to the Office of Juvenile Services with placement at the Youth Rehabilitation and Treatment Center (YRTC). Edward appealed. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court had jurisdiction where Edward's mother, rather than Edward, signed the affidavit for an in forma pauperis appeal. The Court concluded (1) the Court had jurisdiction because in a juvenile's in forma pauperis appeal from a delinquency proceeding, the property affidavit of the juvenile's parent is sufficient to vest the Court with appellate jurisdiction; and (2) the juvenile court properly determined that Edward's best interests and the safety of the community required Edward's placement at the YRTC. View "In re Interest of Edward B." on Justia Law

Credit Bureau Services (CBS) brought an action against Experian Information Solutions (Experian) alleging that Experian sought to drive CBS out of business in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 59-805, a provision of Nebraska's antitrust act. After a jury trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of Experian. CBS appealed, and Experian cross-appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed but for different reasoning than that of the district court, holding that the district court erred when it overruled Experian's motion for directed verdict, as CBS failed to prove each element of section 59-805, and therefore, CBS failed to show that Experian engaged in an act of violation of section 59-805. View "Credit Bureau Servs. v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc." on Justia Law

After an investigation by the Omaha Police Department's "cold case" homicide unit, Defendant was charged in 2010 with the 1978 murder of Carroll Bonnet. Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Defendant appealed, claiming (1) because approximately thirty-three years had passed since the murder, he was denied his right to confront witnesses and present a complete defense, as many of the alleged original witnesses were dead or unavailable; and (2) there was insufficient evidence to convict him, and the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during the questioning of a witness. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it overruled Defendant's motion to dismiss where the charges were brought thirty-three years after the commission of the crimes, as Defendant could not show the State intentionally waited to bring charges to gain an unfair tactical advantage, and therefore, Defendant could not show his due process rights were violated; (2) there was sufficient evidence to sustain the convictions; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Defendant's motion for mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct. View "State v. Watson" on Justia Law

On October 5, 2011, Defendant appeared in county court and pled guilty to four misdemeanors in three separate cases. When Defendant failed to appear for the scheduled sentencing in the cases, the county court issued a bench warrant for her arrest. Defendant was arrested on January 3, 2012 and was released on January 11, 2012. On April 4, 2012, Defendant was sentenced. Defendant appealed, claiming that the county court erred when it failed to give her credit for time previously served. The district court rejected Defendant's assertion, citing to State v. Heckman. The Supreme Court vacated the sentences, holding that Defendant was entitled to credit for time served from January 3 through 11. Remanded. View "State v. Bree" on Justia Law

On November 10, 2010, the State filed a petition in the juvenile court alleging that Appellant carried a concealed weapon on his person and possessed a "pistol, revolver or other form of short-barreled hand firearm." On October 12, 2011, Appellant filed a motion to discharge for failure to adjudicate within the time statutorily required. At the adjudication hearing on October 14, 2011, the juvenile court denied the motion to discharge. The hearing was then continued to December 22, 2011. On November 8, 2011, Appellant appealed the denial of his motion to discharge. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion in affirming the decision of the juvenile court; and (2) the court of appeals did not err in not addressing Appellant's constitutional speedy adjudication rights. View "In re Shaquille H." on Justia Law