Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a bench trial, Defendant was found guilty of sexually assaulting a child in the third degree. Defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant’s brief touch of the victim’s crotch over the victim’s clothes was “sexual contact.” The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) although some facts suggested an innocent explanation for the Defendant’s touch of the victim, there were sufficient other facts supporting the trial court’s finding that Defendant’s touch was for the purpose of his sexual arousal or gratification; and (2) therefore, sufficient evidence supported the verdict. View "State v. Bauer" on Justia Law

Appellant sustained a compensable injury while working for Employer. The workers’ compensation court awarded benefits. Appellant later filed a second petition to modify, alleging that her injury had materially and substantially worsened, necessitating a modification of the award. The workers’ compensation court found that a modification was not warranted and that, in the alternative, Employer could not be ordered to pay more even if Appellant had established that she was entitled to modification. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the compensation court did not err in concluding that Appellant did not prove a material and substantial change for the worse in her condition warranting a modification of the award. View "Rader v. Speer Auto" on Justia Law

Employee was severely injured when he fell off a flatbed truck driven by the location manager for Employer’s facility after a customer appreciation supper. Employee filed for workers’ compensation benefits. In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court concluded that Employee was injured in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The court reserved the issue of benefits for a later determination, and Employer appealed. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether the trial court’s order was final. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that Employer did not appeal from a final order because the trial court had not yet determined benefits. Remanded. View "Jacobitz v. Aurora Coop." on Justia Law

The juvenile court adjudicated Child under Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-247(3)(a) because of parental neglect. Because Mother was making poor progress toward the goal of reunification, the State moved to terminate Mother’s parental rights. Before the termination hearing began, Mother’s attorney asked the court for leave to withdraw. The juvenile court allowed the attorney to withdraw because Mother had not communicated with him. The court then terminated Mother’s parental rights to Child. Mother appealed, arguing that by allowing her attorney to withdraw before the termination hearing began, the juvenile court denied her due process. The Supreme Court vacated the court’s order, holding (1) a juvenile court may not permit an attorney to withdraw from representing a parent at a termination hearing for lack of communication unless the attorney shows that he or she has provided notice of an intent to withdraw or made diligent efforts to do so; and (2) the court’s procedures in this case denied Mother due process at the termination hearing. Remanded for a new termination hearing. View "In re Landon H." on Justia Law

Plaintiff contracted with a shipper agent to move his household goods and personal property from Nebraska to Florida, but the movers who took possession of Plaintiff's property demanded additional payment before the property was delivered, and the property was never delivered to Florida or returned to Plaintiff. Plaintiff sought coverage under his homeowner's policy for loss of personal property due to theft. Insurer denied coverage, claiming that a theft had not occurred. Plaintiff sued Insurer for breach of contract and bad faith in denying the insurance claim. The district court granted summary judgment for Insurer, concluding that Plaintiff lost his property in a contractual dispute and that there was no showing of criminal intent. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether a theft occurred in this case. Remanded. View "Peterson v. Homesite Indem. Co." on Justia Law

Robert Sivick was appointed the county attorney for Howard County. Sivick was unsuccessful in his bid to be elected the county attorney for the next term of office and subsequently filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits with the State. The Nebraska Department of Labor determined that Sivick was ineligible for benefits because his wages were not for covered "employment." The Nebraska Appeal Tribnual reversed, concluding that because the majority of Sivick's duties were not spent in policymaking or advisory capacities, because Sivick was not an elected official, and because there was no statutory designation of his position being a major advisory position, Sivick's earnings were covered wages for the purposes of unemployment insurance benefits. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the position of county attorney is one that has been designated a "major nontenured policymaking or advisory position" under Nebraska law, and therefore, the services Sivick performed in his position were monetarily ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits because his wages were not for covered "employment." View "Lang v. Howard County" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Defendant pled guilty to two counts of second degree murder and one count of use of a weapon to commit a felony. The district court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment on both murder convictions and to ten to twenty years in prison on the weapon conviction, with the sentences to run consecutively. The Supreme Court affirmed the sentences. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding that Defendant's trial counsel rendered effective assistance. View "State v. Fester" on Justia Law

Mother gave birth to Child in August 2012. Shortly after the birth, Mother and Appellant signed a sworn acknowledgment of paternity before a notary public naming Appellant as Child's biological father. At the time, both Mother and Appellant knew Appellant was not Child's biological father. In December 2012, the State initiated juvenile proceedings against Child's parents. Appellant was identified as Child's father in the State's petition alleging that Child was a child within Neb. Rev. Stat. 435-247(3)(a). Child's guardian ad litem (GAL) moved to exclude Appellant from the proceedings, challenging the acknowledgment of paternity signed by Appellant on the basis of fraud. After a hearing, the juvenile court found the GAL had met its burden to rebut the presumption of paternity arising from the notarized acknowledgment of paternity, granted the GAL's motion to exclude Appellant, and dismissed him from the proceedings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the juvenile court did not err in excluding Appellant from the juvenile proceedings because he was neither the legal nor the biological father of Child. View "In re Interest of Kodi L." on Justia Law

Mother's six children were adjudicated in a juvenile proceeding in which the juvenile court found the children at risk due to domestic violence and drug-use in the home. The children were placed in foster care, and the State sought termination of Mother's parental rights. Before the juvenile court ruled on the State's motion, the court ordered that the children remain the temporary custody of Department of Health and Human Services for placement, treatment, and care. The court also imposed specific conditions on Mother's visitation rights. Mother appealed this order. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that because the order related to visitation and was temporary in nature, it was not a final, appealable order, and therefore, the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. View "In re Interest of Danaisha W." on Justia Law

The Harold Warp Pioneer Village Foundation (Foundation) owned and operated a museum, motel, and campground. The motel and campground were primarily used by museum visitors. The museum, motel, and campground were all granted property tax exemptions for many years, but in 2011, state tax officials challenged the exemptions granted to the motel and campground. The Nebraska Tax Equalization and Review Commission determined that because the motel and campground were not used exclusively for educational purposes, neither was entitled to tax exemptions under Nebraska law. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the motel and campground were beneficial to the museum and reasonably necessary to further its educational mission, and were therefore entitled to property tax exemptions. View "Harold Warp Pioneer Village Found. v. Ewald" on Justia Law