Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Shortly after his release from prison, Nikko Jenkins shot Shamecka Holloway. Holloway sued the State, Correct Care Solutions (CCS), and certain State employees, claiming that the State and CCS, which contracted with the State to provide medical services for inmates, were negligent in failing to provide Jenkins with adequate mental health treatment and failing to seek mental health commitment prior to Jenkins’ release. The district court dismissed Holloway’s claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State and its employees were entitled to immunity from suit because whether to seek commitment falls under the discretionary function exception to the State Tort Claims Act; and (2) Holloway failed to plead sufficient facts to show that CCS was liable. View "Holloway v. State" on Justia Law

Kristina Scheele was injured in an automobile accident with a semi-trailer truck driven by Frank Lukach. Darrell Rains was burning vegetation off of a field along the highway when the accident occurred. Scheele sued Rains, Lukach, Delles Carrier Inc., and Sentry Insurance and the Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society, which were included for workers’ compensation subrogation purposes, alleging negligence. After a trial, the jury returned a verdict finding that Scheele had not met her burden of proof as to the negligence of either Rains or Delles and Lukach. Scheele appealed, arguing that the district court erred in not entering a directed verdict for her and in giving a corrected version of an instruction that was first given incorrectly. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Scheele’s assignments of error were without merit. View "Scheele v. Rains" on Justia Law

Opal Lowman was injured in an automobile accident. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company provided underinsured motorist coverage to Opal and her husband. The Lowmans sued State Farm, seeking damages. The jury returned a verdict for the Lowmans in the amount of $0. The Lowmans filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err when it entered judgment on the jury’s verdict where the jury awarded the Lowmans no money damages; and (2) the district court did not err in denying the Lowmans’ motion for new trial. View "Lowman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were walking in the direction of Defendants’ home when Defendants’ dogs ran in Plaintiffs’ direction, barking and growling. One of the plaintiffs stumbled and fell when backing away from the dogs, but neither of the dogs touched Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed this action under Neb. Rev. Stat. 54-601(1), which imposes liability upon dog owners for damages caused by their dogs “chasing” or “injuring” any person or persons, among other things. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in granting summary judgment without considering every relevant definition of the terms “chase” and “injure.” Remanded. View "Grammer v. Lucking" on Justia Law

Thirteen-year-old Efrain Ramos-Domingo was struck and killed by a Union Pacific Railroad Company train in Schuyler. Plaintiff, Efrain’s mother, as personal representative of Efrain’s estate, filed a wrongful death action against Union Pacific. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Union Pacific, concluding that Union Pacific did not breach its standard of care and that Efrain violated his duty to look and listen for the approaching train and to obey the crossing gate. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in concluding as a matter of law that Union Pacific was not negligent and that Efrain was contributorily negligent sufficient to bar his recovery. Remanded. View "Gonzalez v. Union Pacific R.R. Co." on Justia Law

After Eric Zornes won a lottery, Eric and his wife, Julia, commenced a gifting plan to Andy Wolfe, Jason Wolfe, and Jason Reed. These gifts were structured as loans, and each borrower made a promissory note for his loan, payable to Julia’s and Eric’s revocable trusts jointly. Andy’s note was secured by a deed of trust for real property. Julia and Eric later divorced pursuant to a settlement agreement. When Eric found that Andy’s house had been sold and that Julia had retained the proceeds of the sale, Eric filed this complaint alleging that Julia had converted the proceeds of Andy’s note. Julia counterclaimed for partition of the Jason Wolfe and Jason Reed notes. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Julia, concluding that even if Julia had converted the proceeds, the settlement agreement operated as an accord and satisfaction. The court also ordered partition of the promissory notes for Jason Wolfe’s and Jason Reed’s loans. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Eric was not entitled to summary judgment on his conversion claim; (2) the settlement agreement did not constitute an accord and satisfaction; and (3) the lower court erred in the method by which it partitioned the Jason Wolfe and Jason Reed notes. View "Zornes v. Zornes" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a commercial dairy operation, sued Defendants, the manufacturer of a microprocessor-based milking control unit and the dealer of the unit, alleging breach of express and implied warranties and negligence and seeking damages for the allegedly negligent and defective installation and programming of its unit. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that improper settings caused the milking units to detach while under significant vacuum, thereby harming the teats of the dairy cows and lowering milk production. The district court granted Defendants’ motions for summary judgment, concluding that Plaintiff did not rebut Defendants’ prima facie case that mechanic components of the milking system maintained by Plaintiff and not part of the microprocessor-based control unit were the proximate cause of the alleged damages. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants, as Plaintiff failed to present evidence from which a jury could determine that the unit was the proximate cause of the alleged injury to Plaintiff’s cows; but (2) reversed the district court’s order granting prejudgment interest on the dealer’s counterclaim, as there was a reasonable controversy over Plaintiff’s right to recover. View "Roskop Dairy, LLC v. GEA Farm Techs., Inc." on Justia Law

Under the terms of the will of Etta Jurgens (the decedent), Janice Litherland was to receive certain real estate if it was owned by Etta at the time of her death. Gary Jurgens (Jurgens) and Velda Lenners were also beneficiaries under the decedent’s will. Prior to the decedent’s death, Jurgens, as the decedent’s attorney in fact, sold the property. Under a separate provision of the will, the proceeds from the sale were deposited into the decedent’s bank accounts and divided equally among Litherland, Jurgens, and Lenners upon the decedent’s death. Litherland later brought this action against Jurgens and Lenners for unjust enrichment, intentional interference with an inheritance, and conspiracy. The district court dismissed Litherland’s action. Litherland appealed, challenging the district court’s dismissal of her claims for interference with an inheritance and conspiracy. At issue on appeal was whether Nebraska recognizes a cause of action for the tort of intentional interference with an inheritance. The Supreme Court declined to adopt the tort as a cause of action that is permitted in Nebraska and therefore affirmed the district court, concluding that without such an underlying tort, both of Litherland’s claims challenged on appeal failed. View "Litherland v. Jurgens" on Justia Law

While replacing the fence along the property of Tedd Bish Farm and its owner (collectively, Bish) Southwest Fencing Services, LLC damaged a section a pipe that fed the farm's irrigation system . Bish sought damages for repair of the pipe and lost profits from loss of use of the pipe for the 2012 crop year. The county court granted Southwest Fencing’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether Bish had made reasonable efforts to mitigate its damages. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, where reasonable minds could not differ concerning Bish’s efforts to mitigate, the district court did not err in affirming the county court’s order granting partial summary judgment for Southwest Fencing with respect to the issue of mitigation. View "Tedd Bish Farm v. Southwest Fencing Servs." on Justia Law

While replacing the fence along the property of Tedd Bish Farm and its owner (collectively, Bish) Southwest Fencing Services, LLC damaged a section a pipe that fed the farm's irrigation system . Bish sought damages for repair of the pipe and lost profits from loss of use of the pipe for the 2012 crop year. The county court granted Southwest Fencing’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether Bish had made reasonable efforts to mitigate its damages. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, where reasonable minds could not differ concerning Bish’s efforts to mitigate, the district court did not err in affirming the county court’s order granting partial summary judgment for Southwest Fencing with respect to the issue of mitigation. View "Tedd Bish Farm v. Southwest Fencing Servs." on Justia Law