Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case concerns a defendant who was convicted of felony animal neglect after a severely emaciated and wounded dog, registered to her, was seized by the Nebraska Humane Society. The dog was ultimately euthanized and a necropsy performed. The defendant entered a no contest plea to the charge in exchange for the State’s recommendation of probation. During sentencing, the probation officer recommended, among other conditions, that the defendant pay all fees to the Humane Society for handling the dog. The presentence investigation report (PSR) did not specify the amount of these fees, and the court’s oral pronouncement did not mention reimbursement, but the written probation order included the condition requiring payment to the Humane Society, without specifying an amount.In the District Court for Douglas County, the defendant’s counsel did not object to the recommended probation conditions, and instead asked the court to follow the probation officer’s suggestions, only remarking on the defendant’s limited income. The court adopted the recommendations, including the reimbursement requirement, and provided an opportunity to revisit any condition if needed. The defendant did not request clarification or object after reviewing the written order. The defendant then appealed, challenging the reimbursement condition on several grounds, including lack of advisement during the plea and the absence of a specific amount.The Nebraska Supreme Court held that because reimbursement was imposed as a condition of probation—and not as a criminal penalty—the trial court was not required to inform the defendant of this possibility during the plea hearing. The court further held that by not objecting to the condition at sentencing and instead requesting its adoption, the defendant forfeited her other challenges. Finding no reversible error, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. View "State v. Dale" on Justia Law

An inmate confined in a Nebraska correctional facility struck a correctional officer twice in the head after a confrontation in the office area of the prison unit. The events were recorded by security cameras, though key moments were obscured from view. Testimony established that the inmate was agitated, refused repeated lawful commands to back away from the doorway, and escalated the situation until the officer unholstered and deployed pepper spray. The inmate then punched the officer and fled. Both parties presented testimony regarding prison policies and their perspectives on the altercation, including conflicting accounts about the timing of the pepper spray’s deployment and the inmate’s motivations.The case was tried in the District Court for Lancaster County, where the defendant requested a jury instruction on self-defense, arguing that the officer’s use of pepper spray constituted unlawful force. The State opposed, emphasizing that prison policies permitted the use of pepper spray in response to escalating threats and that the defendant’s noncompliance with commands was unjustified. The district court found the evidence did not support a legally cognizable claim of self-defense, refused the instruction, submitted the case to the jury, and accepted a guilty verdict for assault by a confined person. The defendant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, consecutive to his current sentence.Reviewing the appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court concluded the lower court correctly refused the self-defense instruction because the defendant unjustifiably placed himself in harm’s way by ignoring lawful commands. The court held that the evidence was sufficient for conviction and that the sentence was within statutory limits and not an abuse of discretion. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "State v. Liech" on Justia Law

An individual entered into a lease to reside in an apartment within an assisted living community. The lease required the tenant to keep the apartment tidy and free of clutter, incorporating provisions from a resident handbook. After the landlord became concerned about the tenant’s compliance—specifically, the presence of unpacked boxes and general clutter—the parties executed a Negotiated Risk Agreement to address these issues. When conditions did not improve, the landlord issued written notices culminating in a 14-day discharge notice and ultimately filed a complaint for restitution of the premises when the tenant did not vacate.Initially, the County Court for Douglas County dismissed the landlord’s first complaint for restitution. Afterward, the landlord issued a new notice based on ongoing violations and filed a second complaint. Following a trial, the county court found the tenant had materially breached the lease and Nebraska law by failing to keep the apartment clean and safe, and entered judgment in favor of the landlord. The tenant appealed to the District Court for Douglas County, which affirmed the county court’s decision. The district court held that the landlord’s pleadings and notice were sufficient, waiver and res judicata did not bar relief, and although the supersedeas bond had been set too high, the issue was moot because the tenant had already been evicted following the failure to post the bond.Before the Nebraska Supreme Court, the tenant argued that various errors warranted reversal, including pleading defects, waiver, res judicata, and improper bond setting. The Nebraska Supreme Court held that the appeal was moot because the tenant had been removed from the apartment and no effective relief could be granted. The court also found that the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine did not apply to any of the issues raised. Accordingly, the Nebraska Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. View "Saint Joseph Tower Assisted Living v. Royce" on Justia Law

The case began when a limited liability company filed a breach of contract action against an individual, who responded by asserting a counterclaim for tortious interference with current and prospective business relationships, seeking damages, interest, and attorney fees. Both parties moved for summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the individual on that claim and denied the company’s motion. Subsequently, the company moved for summary judgment on the counterclaim, but the individual moved to dismiss his counterclaim without prejudice, which the district court granted. The company then filed a notice of appeal.On appeal, the Nebraska Court of Appeals considered whether it had jurisdiction, given that the case involved multiple claims and the district court had not certified a final judgment under the relevant Nebraska statute. The Court of Appeals reasoned that, although a voluntary dismissal without prejudice does not usually create appellate jurisdiction, in this instance, the individual’s acknowledgment that any attempt to refile his counterclaim would be barred by the statute of limitations, and that he did not intend to refile, provided the finality needed for appellate jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals then reversed the district court’s summary judgment order.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case to address appellate jurisdiction. It held that, because there was neither a judgment rendered nor a final order disposing of all claims as required by statute, the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of the appeal. The Supreme Court reaffirmed its bright-line rule that appellate jurisdiction cannot be created merely by voluntarily dismissing unresolved claims without prejudice, even if the claims are unlikely to be refiled. The Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ decision and remanded the matter with directions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "WRK v. Wiegert" on Justia Law

The parties in this case are neighbors whose homes are situated with their backyards facing one another, separated by a narrow commons area. Prior to the events at issue, there was significant animosity between them. In December 2024, one party filed petitions for harassment protection orders against the other parties, alleging ongoing disputes including the use of police resources to gather information, failure to restrain their dogs after warnings, installation of a bright work light shining into her home, and incidents that made her feel she was being watched or followed. The district court issued ex parte harassment protection orders the same day, effective for one year.After the orders were issued, the subjects of the orders requested a show cause hearing before the District Court for Lancaster County. At this hearing, they presented evidence and explained their actions, asserting lawful purposes for their conduct, including security and documenting a potential ordinance violation. The district court found their explanations unpersuasive, concluded that their actions were intended to intimidate, and affirmed the harassment protection orders to remain in effect for one year. The parties subject to the orders appealed, and the appeals were consolidated and moved to the Nebraska Supreme Court’s docket.While the appeal was pending before the Nebraska Supreme Court, the harassment protection orders expired, rendering the appeals moot. However, the court determined that the issue of interpreting the phrase “which serves no legitimate purpose” under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-311.02(2)(a) presented a matter of public interest warranting review despite mootness. The Nebraska Supreme Court held that, under this statute, determining whether conduct serves a legitimate purpose requires (1) a genuine, justifiable purpose and (2) a logical connection between the conduct and that purpose under the circumstances. The court dismissed the appeals as moot. View "Flinn v. Strode" on Justia Law

A 16-year-old juvenile was charged with serious offenses, including first degree sexual assault, terroristic threats, assault by strangulation or suffocation, and third degree domestic assault, all stemming from two incidents involving his then-girlfriend. After an investigation initiated by a friend's report, law enforcement gathered police reports, photographs, text message screenshots, and a video interview of the alleged victim. The State moved to transfer the juvenile’s case from the juvenile court to the adult docket of the county court.At the transfer hearing in the County Court for Buffalo County, the State did not call any witnesses and instead offered documentary and video exhibits without authentication or supporting testimony. The juvenile’s counsel objected on due process, foundation, and confrontation grounds, arguing he could not cross-examine or otherwise challenge the evidence. The court overruled the objections, received the evidence, and concluded that most statutory factors favored transfer, despite finding some factors supported retention in juvenile court. The court found the State met its burden by a preponderance of the evidence and ordered the case transferred.The Nebraska Court of Appeals, in a split decision, affirmed the juvenile court’s actions. The majority held that the juvenile’s due process rights were satisfied because he had a hearing, representation by counsel, and a specific written decision, relying on the standards set forth in Kent v. United States. The dissent disagreed, arguing the lack of authentication and sponsoring witnesses for the State’s exhibits deprived the juvenile of due process.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Supreme Court held that the juvenile’s due process rights were not violated under these facts, as counsel had access to the State’s evidence and an opportunity to respond, and the evidence bore sufficient indicia of reliability. The Court also concluded that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the transfer to adult court. View "In re Interest of Aaden S." on Justia Law

Trevor M. Jones was charged with theft by deception in November 2023. Almost a year after the charge was filed, Jones moved for absolute discharge, claiming that the State of Nebraska failed to bring him to trial within the time required by Nebraska’s statutory speedy trial provisions. The District Court for Lancaster County held a hearing and agreed that Jones’s statutory speedy trial rights had been violated, granting his motion for absolute discharge and dismissing the charge.Following this decision, the State sought to appeal the district court’s order. Instead of following the procedures set out for exception proceedings under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2315.01, which specifically governs State appeals in criminal cases, the State simply filed a notice of appeal under the general appellate statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1912. The Nebraska Court of Appeals questioned whether it had jurisdiction, since the State had not complied with the specific procedural requirements for exception proceedings. After seeking input from the State and considering a motion for summary dismissal from Jones, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, finding that the State’s failure to follow the statutory process deprived the appellate court of jurisdiction. The State’s motion for rehearing was denied.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the matter on further review. The Supreme Court held that, under established precedent and the doctrine of stare decisis, the State may only obtain appellate review of a district court’s order granting absolute discharge in a criminal case by strictly following the procedures outlined in § 29-2315.01. The State’s failure to do so meant the appellate courts lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the State’s appeal. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted by a jury of first degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person. Following affirmance of his convictions on direct appeal, he filed a timely motion for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and a Brady violation based on counsel’s failure to present exculpatory evidence and a witness. The defendant submitted three documents on the same day: his motion, a memorandum brief with an affirmation concerning the brief, and a separate affirmation, filed with a motion for appointment of counsel, that expressly verified the facts in his postconviction motion.The District Court for Hall County denied postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing, citing two independent grounds: lack of verification and substantive defects in the motion. The court interpreted the affirmation attached to the memorandum brief as not verifying the motion for postconviction relief and did not address the effect of the separate affirmation attached to the motion for appointment of counsel. Alternatively, the court found that the defendant’s claim was insufficient on the merits, characterizing the allegations as mere conclusions of fact or law without supporting facts.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case for plain error because the defendant’s brief failed to properly assign errors as required by court rules. The Supreme Court held that a separate, properly executed verification, filed simultaneously with a postconviction motion and directed exclusively to that motion, satisfies the statutory verification requirement. However, the court found no plain error in the District Court’s denial of relief, concluding that the defendant’s motion did not allege sufficient facts to warrant an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief. View "State v. Anthony" on Justia Law

A Nebraska limited liability company owned by Michael Perkins hired RMR Building Group, LLC, managed and solely owned by Robert M. Ryan II, as a general contractor to redevelop a shopping center. Their contract used a cost-plus billing arrangement, where Perkins paid RMR in advance for specific construction costs, including a substantial sum for HVAC equipment and RMR’s fee. RMR deposited the funds into its general operating account but did not pay for the HVAC equipment; instead, it used the money to cover other business obligations. Perkins terminated the contract after RMR failed to provide proof of payment for the equipment and then sued RMR and Ryan for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, and fraudulent misrepresentation, also seeking to pierce the corporate veil and hold Ryan personally liable.The District Court for Douglas County found that RMR breached the contract and was liable under theories of money had and received and unjust enrichment, but not for conversion or fraudulent misrepresentation. The court declined to disregard RMR’s corporate entity, finding no sufficient evidence that Ryan diverted funds for personal use or that RMR was a mere facade for Ryan’s dealings. Perkins appealed these findings.The Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed in part, concluding that the corporate veil should be pierced and Ryan held jointly and severally liable for the misappropriated funds, relying on factors from United States Nat. Bank of Omaha v. Rupe. On further review, the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that the evidence did not establish by a preponderance that RMR’s entity should be disregarded, nor did it support fraud or conversion claims against Ryan. The Supreme Court remanded with direction to affirm the district court’s judgment. View "Perkins v. RMR Building Group" on Justia Law

A juvenile born in 2007 was adjudicated at age 14 for habitual truancy and placed on indefinite probation. Over the next several years, he was adjudicated in four separate delinquency cases—primarily theft and assault-related—and placed on indefinite probation in each case. While still on probation in all five cases, the State filed a felony criminal complaint against him for attempted robbery. In response, the State moved in all juvenile cases for a finding that he was not amenable to rehabilitative services under the Nebraska Juvenile Code, requesting that the court terminate jurisdiction “unsuccessfully.”The Separate Juvenile Court of Sarpy County held a consolidated hearing, receiving evidence regarding the juvenile’s history, participation in probation and services, and recent criminal charges. The court found him nonamenable to rehabilitative services and ordered termination of both probation and the court’s jurisdiction, specifying that the record would not be sealed. The juvenile appealed these orders. The Nebraska Court of Appeals consolidated the appeals, and the Nebraska Supreme Court moved them to its docket to address statutory interpretation and procedural issues regarding Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2,106.03.The Nebraska Supreme Court held that a finding of nonamenability under § 43-2,106.03 must be established by a preponderance of the evidence, with the State bearing the burden when it moves for such a finding. The Court affirmed the juvenile court’s determination of nonamenability, finding no abuse of discretion. However, it held there is no statutory authority for a juvenile court to terminate probation or jurisdiction based solely on a finding of nonamenability under § 43-2,106.03. The Supreme Court affirmed the nonamenability finding, but vacated the orders terminating probation and jurisdiction, remanding the cases for further proceedings. View "In re Interest of Johnny H." on Justia Law