Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A privately held Nebraska S corporation had two classes of stock: Class A voting shares and Class B nonvoting shares. In 2023, the corporation sold substantially all its assets to a third party in a transaction structured as a disposition of assets, with proceeds distributed to all shareholders. The board unanimously approved the transaction, and the majority of both classes of shares voted in favor, except for some Class A and Class B shareholders, who opposed or abstained. Following closing, Class B shareholders received their cash proceeds but subsequently notified the corporation of their intent to assert appraisal rights, seeking a higher payment per share.The District Court for Sarpy County was presented with cross-motions for partial summary judgment regarding whether Class B nonvoting shareholders were entitled to appraisal rights under Nebraska’s Model Business Corporation Act (NMBCA) following the asset sale. The district court found that the relevant statute (§ 21-2,172(a)(3)) limited appraisal rights for a disposition of assets to shareholders “entitled to vote on the disposition,” and therefore determined that Class B shareholders lacked such rights. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the corporation and related parties, dismissed certain third-party defendants, and certified the judgment for immediate appeal pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1315(1).On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo and its certification for abuse of discretion. The court held that only Class A voting shareholders were entitled to appraisal rights in connection with the disposition of assets, as the statute unambiguously limited such rights to voting shareholders. The court also found no express grant of appraisal rights to Class B shareholders in the articles of incorporation. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Streck, Inc. v. Ryan" on Justia Law

The case concerns the prosecution of a father charged with first and third degree sexual assault of his 5-year-old biological daughter. The child disclosed the alleged abuse to her older brother, who then informed their mother. The day after the disclosure, the father visited the mother’s home and, upon hearing the brother repeat the accusation, physically assaulted and threatened to kill the brother if he repeated the allegation. The mother delayed reporting the incident to law enforcement for about a month. During pretrial proceedings, the court excluded evidence of another accusation involving a different child but permitted testimony about the father's assault and threat against the brother.Following a jury trial in the District Court for Douglas County, the defendant was acquitted of first degree sexual assault but convicted of third degree sexual assault of a child and sentenced to imprisonment and post-release supervision. He appealed to the Nebraska Court of Appeals, arguing that admission of evidence regarding the assault and threat was unduly prejudicial under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-403. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, reasoning that omitting context about the accusation involving the other child created a misleading impression and unfairly prejudiced the defendant, warranting a new trial.On further review, the Nebraska Supreme Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the defendant’s assault and threat toward the brother. The Court held that this evidence was probative of consciousness of guilt and explained the mother’s delay in reporting the crime. It further determined that any omission regarding the other child’s accusation did not rise to the level of plain error, especially since defense counsel had sought its exclusion. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and remanded with directions to affirm the conviction and sentence. View "State v. Cartwright" on Justia Law

The appellant was convicted of two felonies in the District Court for Lancaster County, Nebraska, and was sentenced to concurrent one-year terms of imprisonment, followed by 18 months of post-release supervision. Afterward, the appellant was convicted in the District Court for Saline County and received a consecutive two-year prison sentence. The appellant completed both periods of incarceration and subsequently filed a motion in Lancaster County District Court to terminate his post-release supervision, arguing that his progress during incarceration and the imposition of separate sentences warranted terminating supervision.Upon receiving the motion, the Lancaster County District Court held a hearing in which the appellant presented evidence of his progress and support system. The court denied the motion, citing the statutory requirement for post-release supervision, and entered a formal order of denial. The appellant then filed a timely appeal from this order.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case, first confirming appellate jurisdiction by finding that the denial of the motion to terminate post-release supervision constituted a final, appealable order. On the merits, the court interpreted relevant statutory language and held that post-release supervision is a mandatory period following incarceration and cannot be served while an individual is still imprisoned for another consecutive sentence, regardless of whether the sentences were imposed in different counties. The court further found that the appellant’s progress during incarceration did not provide a legal basis to terminate the statutorily required post-release supervision. Applying an abuse of discretion standard, the Nebraska Supreme Court held that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion and affirmed the lower court’s order. View "State v. Jackson" on Justia Law

The case concerns Armon K. Rejai’s conviction for second degree murder following a shooting outside his apartment in Lancaster County, Nebraska, on January 21, 2023. The victim, Julian Martinez, was his 18-year-old neighbor. The incident began with a dispute over dogs being off-leash, escalated to Rejai pepper spraying Martinez and his roommates, and culminated with Martinez pounding on Rejai’s door. Rejai claimed that Martinez lunged at him when he opened the door, prompting him to shoot Martinez in the chest. Martinez later died at the hospital as a result of the gunshot wound.Initially charged with first degree murder and other offenses, Rejai ultimately entered a no contest plea to second degree murder under a plea agreement, and the other charges were dismissed. The District Court for Lancaster County accepted the plea and ordered a presentence investigation report (PSR), which included psychological evaluations revealing that Rejai had autism spectrum disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The PSR also showed he had no prior convictions, despite a previous acquittal for terroristic threats. At sentencing, the court imposed the maximum penalty of life imprisonment.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case after Rejai appealed, arguing that the sentence was excessive. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing mitigating factors, considering the PSR’s contents, or imposing the sentence. The Nebraska Supreme Court reaffirmed that appellate courts are not required to conduct comparative analyses of sentences from other cases and expressly disapproved a contrary statement in State v. Iromuanya. The holding was that Rejai’s life sentence was not excessive and did not constitute an abuse of discretion. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "State v. Rejai" on Justia Law

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder after a jury trial relating to the disappearance of a fellow college student with whom he was last seen. The defense’s strategy at trial was to present alternative explanations for the missing person’s fate, including accidental hypothermia, and called a forensic pathologist as an expert witness. During cross-examination, the expert stated that if someone purposely placed another person in a dangerous situation where they could not return to safety, that would be considered a homicide. Trial counsel did not object or further clarify the testimony. The jury found the appellant guilty of second degree murder.Following conviction and sentencing, the appellant’s counsel filed a direct appeal, which challenged only the sufficiency of the evidence, and the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The appellant then filed a motion for postconviction relief in the District Court for Gage County, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel based mainly on the handling of the expert’s testimony. After an evidentiary hearing—including depositions of trial counsel—the district court found that counsel’s decisions about the expert’s testimony were strategic and did not amount to deficient performance. The district court denied postconviction relief.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions independently. The court held that trial counsel’s response to the expert’s testimony was a strategic decision and not objectively unreasonable. The court also found that additional claims raised for the first time on appeal could not be considered. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying postconviction relief. View "State v. Keadle" on Justia Law

A New Mexico insurance company initiated a lawsuit in Nebraska against two insurance companies, asserting claims for contribution and indemnity. One defendant, a New York insurance company, moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, while the other defendant, a surplus insurance company, challenged a default judgment and sought to file a responsive pleading. The district court in Douglas County issued separate orders: it dismissed the New York insurer with prejudice and set aside the default judgment against the other defendant, allowing additional proceedings.After the dismissal order concerning the New York insurer, the plaintiff appealed to the Nebraska Court of Appeals, which summarily dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The case returned to the district court, where the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims against the remaining defendant without prejudice. This second dismissal order did not reference the prior dismissal of the New York insurer. The plaintiff then filed another appeal, again challenging the earlier dismissal order. The Court of Appeals dismissed this second appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, citing the absence of a single judgment resolving all claims against all parties as required by Nebraska statutes and referencing the Nebraska Supreme Court’s decision in Elbert v. Keating, O’Gara. The plaintiff petitioned for further review.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that, because the district court had not entered a single written judgment adjudicating all claims and all parties, nor certified any order as final under the applicable statute, there was no final, appealable order. Therefore, the Supreme Court determined it lacked appellate jurisdiction and affirmed the dismissal of the appeal by the Court of Appeals. The court emphasized that jurisdiction cannot be created by voluntary dismissal without prejudice of unresolved claims or parties in the absence of a final judgment. View "Continental Indem. Co. v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co." on Justia Law

The case concerns a man who forcibly entered the home of his former partner, S.E., with whom he shared a child. On May 12, 2023, after their relationship had deteriorated and following multiple threats by him against S.E., he kicked in the door of the house where S.E. was staying. He struck S.E. and, when her brother Jordan attempted to intervene while armed, the defendant shot and killed Jordan. He then shot S.E. in both legs, including while she was holding their child, though the child was not physically harmed. The defendant was charged with eight felony offenses, including first degree murder (premeditated and felony murder), use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, domestic assault, burglary, and child abuse.The Washington County District Court allowed the State to introduce evidence of prior uncharged assaults by the defendant against S.E., finding this evidence inextricably intertwined with the charged crimes. The court denied the defendant’s request for a self-defense jury instruction, reasoning that he had unjustifiably placed himself in harm’s way by breaking into the residence. The court also permitted S.E. to remain in the courtroom during the trial as an essential witness. The defendant was convicted on all counts and sentenced to multiple terms of imprisonment, some to run concurrently.On direct appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence of prior assaults was properly admitted as it provided necessary context for the charged crimes. The Court found no error in the refusal to instruct on self-defense or in allowing S.E. to be present during trial, as the defendant failed to show prejudice. However, the Court held that it was error to sentence the defendant both for felony murder and for the predicate felony of burglary, and that sentences for use of a deadly weapon must be served consecutively, not concurrently. All sentences were vacated and the case was remanded for resentencing, but the convictions were affirmed. View "State v. Logan" on Justia Law

After police responded to a noise complaint, they found the defendant asleep in the driver’s seat of a running vehicle with two tires on a driveway and two tires touching a public street. Officers detected alcohol and obtained a breath sample showing a blood alcohol level of .127. The defendant admitted to drinking earlier. He was charged with driving under the influence, third offense, based on alleged prior DUI convictions.The County Court for Lancaster County initially accepted the defendant’s no contest plea, but the District Court for Lancaster County vacated the sentence, finding the plea was not properly elicited. On remand, a new plea hearing was held and several exhibits were reoffered, but the exhibits intended to show the defendant’s prior convictions were not offered or received. The County Court, mistakenly believing these exhibits were in evidence, enhanced the conviction and sentenced the defendant for a third-offense DUI. The District Court affirmed, finding the plea proper and the sentence within statutory limits.The Nebraska Court of Appeals also affirmed, holding that the defendant could not challenge the enhancement because he had not raised the issue previously and had, through defense counsel’s statements, invited any error regarding the admission of prior convictions. The appellate court treated the enhancement as falling under the invited error doctrine and declined to address whether the sentence was excessive absent proof of prior convictions.The Nebraska Supreme Court determined that plain error occurred because there was no evidence in the record establishing prior convictions to support a third-offense DUI enhancement. The Court held that the lower courts erred by enhancing and sentencing the defendant absent such proof and that the invited error doctrine did not apply. The Court vacated the sentence and remanded the case for a new enhancement and sentencing hearing. View "State v. Molina" on Justia Law

A petition was filed seeking to adjudicate a juvenile, Jerel, as having committed an act that would constitute the felony of terroristic threats under Nebraska law. The incident at issue involved Jerel, then placed in foster care with Lanslot Pyne, allegedly threatening Pyne with violence during a confrontation in the night. Pyne testified that Jerel, while holding a knife, stated he had considered ways to kill Pyne and made explicit threats to harm or kill him. Jerel presented a different account, denying the threats and claiming he was attempting to prompt a change in his placement by displaying items to Pyne.The Separate Juvenile Court of Lancaster County heard the case. On the day of the adjudication hearing, Jerel’s counsel moved to disqualify the judge and for a continuance, citing late discovery of related documents and lack of time to meet with Jerel. Both motions were denied. At trial, the court found Pyne’s testimony credible and Jerel’s not believable, ultimately adjudicating Jerel as a juvenile under the relevant statute for committing an act constituting terroristic threats. Jerel appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the denial of the continuance, and alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo, giving weight to the juvenile court’s credibility determinations. The court held that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Jerel committed an act constituting terroristic threats, as Pyne’s credible testimony established both the threats and the intent to terrorize. The court found no ineffective assistance of counsel under any applicable standard, as Jerel showed neither deficient performance nor prejudice. The denial of the continuance was also upheld, as no prejudice was demonstrated. The Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed the adjudication. View "In re Interest of Jerel S." on Justia Law

The case involves the criminal prosecution of a defendant who was convicted by a jury of second degree assault and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. The incident took place in December 2023 at an apartment complex where the defendant, after an intoxicated and unwelcome visit to his cousin’s apartment, became involved in a confrontation with a neighbor. Testimony established that the neighbor attempted to use a baseball bat to keep the defendant away, resulting in a physical altercation. The neighbor suffered multiple injuries, and there was evidence of an escalating struggle, including the neighbor retrieving a shotgun and a fight over the weapon. Both parties claimed self-defense, and the defendant testified to a different version of the events, stating that he was attacked first and responded only to defend himself.After the jury returned guilty verdicts, the District Court for Scotts Bluff County sentenced the defendant to concurrent prison terms. The defendant, represented by new counsel on appeal, challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and raised several claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel before the Nebraska Court of Appeals. The appellate brief listed alleged failures by trial counsel, such as not subpoenaing certain witnesses, failing to introduce beneficial evidence, not advising the defendant about attending a deposition, inadequately pursuing a plea deal, and poor trial preparation. However, the Court of Appeals found most claims of ineffective assistance were too vague or lacked necessary specificity in the assignments of error, except for the plea agreement issue, which could not be resolved on the record.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to convict, rejecting the self-defense claim as a matter for the jury. The court clarified that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel must be specifically stated in the assignments of error; general or vague claims are procedurally barred. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. View "State v. Rupp" on Justia Law