Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff was the surface owner of land in Sioux County. Plaintiff sued the owners of severed mineral interests in that land under Nebraska's dormant mineral statutes to reacquire their allegedly abandoned interests. Mineral interests are deemed abandoned unless the "record owner" has taken certain steps to publicly exercise his ownership rights during the twenty-three years preceding the surface owner's suit. This appeal involved one defendant (Defendant), who asserted that she was the "record owner" of the mineral interests through the will of Decedent. The register of deeds still listed Decedent as the owner of the disputed mineral interests. The district court vested title to the disputed mineral interests in Plaintiff, concluding that Defendant was not a "record owner" of the mineral interests because the term "record owner" under the dormant mineral statutes meant only the person listed in the register of deeds in the county where the property was located. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, for the reasons set forth in Gibbs Cattle Co. v. Bixler, the "record owner" of mineral interests includes an individual identified by probate records in the county where the interests are located. View "WTJ Skavdahl Land LLC v. Elliott " on Justia Law

Defendant pled no contest to a charge of fraudulently obtaining public assistance benefits and was sentenced to five years' probation. Defendant later filed a motion to withdraw her plea, alleging that she received ineffective assistance of counsel because her counsel had not told her that her conviction would result in automatic deportation. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Defendant's motion, concluding that Defendant failed to demonstrate that her counsel's deficient performance prejudiced her. The Supreme Court affirmed. After the State's motion for rehearing was granted, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Chaidez v. U.S., which held that the holding in Padilla v. Kentucky requiring defense counsel to advise clients of the risk of deportation arising from a guilty plea, did not apply retroactively to a defendant whose conviction became final before Padilla was decided. Based on Chaidez, the Supreme Court withdrew its previous opinion, substituted this opinion, and dismissed Defendant's appeal, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear Defendant's motion where Defendant's sole remedy was to file for postconviction relief pursuant to the Nebraska Postconviction Act. View "State v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

In 2009, a registered nurse (Nurse) employed by Hospital commenced this action for workers' compensation benefits, alleging that as the result of three incidents with patients involving assault and sexual assault, she suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression. The workers' compensation court found all three incidents occurred, held that Nurse suffered depression and PTSD as a result of the incidents, and that Nurse was permanently and totally disabled. The court awarded benefits accordingly. After Hospital appealed, it was discovered that the testimony of all Hospital witnesses who testified on behalf of Hospital could not be transcribed due to a failure of electronic equipment used by the court reporter. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the trial court and remanded for a new trial, concluding that, under the circumstances of the case, where the testimony of all Hospital witnesses had been lost due to no fault of either party, the Court could not undertake a meaningful appellate review of the assignments of error. Remanded for a new trial. View "Hynes v. Good Samaritan Hosp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was the surface owner of various tracts of land. Plaintiff sued the owners of several mineral interests in those tracts under Nebraska's dormant mineral statutes to reacquire their allegedly abandoned interests. Mineral interests are deemed abandoned unless the "record owner" has taken certain steps to publicly exercise her ownership rights during the twenty-three years preceding the surface owner's suit. This appeal involved two Defendants. The district court vested title to the disputed mineral interests in Plaintiff. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the "record owner" of mineral interests includes an individual identified by probate records in the county where the interests are located and need not be determined only from the register of deeds in the county where the interests are located; and (2) an amended complaint that adds, rather than changes, a new party defendant does not relate back to the original complaint. View "Gibbs Cattle Co. v. Bixler" on Justia Law

Republican Valley Biofuels (RVBF) issued a confidential private placement memorandum seeking investors in a biodiesel production facility. DMK Biodiesel (DMK) and Lanoha RVBF (Lanoha) invested $600,000 and $400,000 respectively in RVBF, which was being promoted by four individuals (Promoters). Renewable Fuels Technology (Renewable Fuels) was the manager of RVBF. DMK and Lanoha entered into and executed separate subscription agreements with RVBF. DMK and Lanoha later filed a complaint against Renewable Fuels and Promoters, alleging that Defendants fraudulently induced them to invest funds in RVBF. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to take judicial notice, requesting the district court to take judicial notice of the confidential private placement memorandum for RVBF and the subscription agreements executed between RVBF and DMK and Lanoha. The district court granted the motions. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the private placement memorandum and the subscription agreements were properly considered matters outside the pleading, an evidentiary hearing was required. Remanded. View "DMK Biodiesel, LLC v. McCoy" on Justia Law

Landlord and Tenant signed a lease agreement for a rental property that required Tenant to obtain a liability and renter's insurance policy at his expense. Tenants obtained a renter's protection policy of insurance. The house was later damaged by fire caused by a child using a lighter. Landlord's insurer (Insurer) paid for the loss. This subrogation action was brought against Tenants in Landlord's name. The district court dismissed the action, concluding (1) the lease provision requiring Tenant to obtain renter's insurance did not permit Landlord or Insurer to bring a subrogation action against Tenants; and (2) Tenants were coinsureds under Landlord's fire insurance policy, and Insurer could not subrogate against its coinsureds. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the terms of the lease did not overcome the presumption that Tenant was coinsured under Landlord's fire insurance policy, Landlord and Insurer could not bring a subrogation action against Tenants. View "Beveridge v. Savage" on Justia Law

Without permission and in violation of school policy, a high school student retrieved a wallet and sweatshirt from his pickup truck, which was parked on a public street across from the school. When the student returned to school grounds, the assistant principal searched the student's person, backpack, and wallet, only to discover a cellular telephone and a set of keys. Without the student's consent, the assistant principal then searched the student's truck and found drug paraphernalia. The student was suspended for nineteen days. The school board upheld the suspension. The district court reversed the decision of the board and ordered the suspension and offenses expunged from the student's school record, holding that the search of the truck violated the Fourth Amendment, as the assistant principal lacked probable cause to expand the search to the truck. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the search of the student's truck violated the student's right to be free from unreasonable searches. View "J.P. v. Millard Pub. Schs." on Justia Law

Appellants, Bruce and Annette Wiles, filed a complaint against Wiles Brothers, Inc. (WBI) and Marvin Wiles, Bruce's brother (collectively, Appellees), seeking the judicial dissolution of WBI. Appellants founded their complaint on Neb. Rev. Stat. 21-20,162(2)(a), which authorizes a shareholder to bring a proceeding to dissolve a corporation. The district court dismissed the complaint, concluding that Bruce was not a shareholder of WBI and that Bruce and Annette lacked standing to seek the judicial dissolution of WBI. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) for the purposes of dissolution of a corporation, Bruce was not a statutory shareholder who could bring an action for judicial dissolution; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it did not receive certain exhibits into evidence. View "In re Involuntary Dissolution of Wiles Bros., Inc." on Justia Law

The marriage of Mother and Father was dissolved by consent decree in 2010. The decree required Father to pay child support and to be responsible for half of the parties' child's extraordinary expenses. Father subsequently became unemployed and filed a petition to modify the decree. Following a hearing, the court reduced Father's child support obligation and responsibility for some expenses and left Father responsible for fifty percent of extraordinary expenses but modified the provision addressing these expenses to require Father to contribute only to the expenses of which he approved. The Supreme Court affirmed the modification of the parties' dissolution decree, holding (1) the district court did not err in determining that it had power to modify the extraordinary expenses provision of the parties' divorce decree; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding a change in circumstances sufficient to reduce Father's child support and childcare contribution percentage; and (3) it was not an abuse of discretion to modify the extraordinary expenses provision to require Father's approval. View "Caniglia v. Caniglia" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, cocaine, with intent to distribute. The jury found the quantity of the mixture containing cocaine was 10.25 grams. Defendant appealed, contending that there was insufficient foundation regarding the accuracy of a scale used to weigh the cocaine in order to admit evidence of the weight. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred when it admitted testimony regarding the weight of the cocaine without sufficient foundation regarding the accuracy of the scale, and the error was not harmless. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Richardson" on Justia Law