Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The State originally charged the defendant with two counts of first-degree murder in 2004 in the district court for Douglas County. The defendant filed a discovery motion shortly after the charges were brought. The case was dismissed in 2005 at the State’s request, and then, in 2025, the State refiled the same charges, commencing proceedings in county court before moving to the district court. The defendant filed several pretrial motions, including motions for discovery and depositions, and ultimately moved for discharge on the grounds that his statutory speedy trial rights had been violated.Following the refiling, the district court for Douglas County reviewed the timeline for both the original 2004 information and the 2025 information. The court applied the tacking-and-tolling approach, counting nonexcludable days from the 2004 case and excludable periods arising from the defendant’s pretrial motions in the 2025 case. The district court found that only three nonexcludable days had accrued before the discovery motion in 2004, and determined that the 2025 information generated 108 excludable days due to various motions. The court concluded that the defendant’s speedy trial deadline had not expired at the time he filed his motion for discharge.The Nebraska Supreme Court independently reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and conducted a de novo review of the legal questions. The Court held that the district court did not err in finding the 2004 discovery motion was never formally disposed of, and that the defendant’s speedy trial rights had not been violated when he moved for discharge. The Court affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion for discharge and held that the defendant permanently waived his statutory speedy trial rights by filing an unsuccessful motion for discharge that resulted in a continuance beyond the statutory period. View "State v. Walker" on Justia Law

A Nebraska auction company and its former independent sales representative (ISR) entered into a written agreement containing restrictive covenants, including a noncompete clause, and an arbitration provision governed by the Federal Arbitration Act. The ISR terminated the relationship and began working for a competitor, allegedly violating the noncompete clause. The auction company sued for breach of contract, injunctive relief, and tortious interference, seeking a temporary injunction to prevent the ISR’s competitive activities.The District Court for Hall County compelled arbitration for the breach of contract and tortious interference claims but retained jurisdiction to decide the request for injunctive relief, ultimately granting a temporary injunction against the ISR. While the arbitration was pending, the ISR sought to dissolve the injunction and later moved for damages, costs, and attorney fees under Nebraska’s injunction undertaking statute after the arbitrator ruled the restrictive covenants unenforceable and awarded certain damages to the ISR. The arbitrator also found that additional damages based on the invalidation of the restrictive covenants were speculative and not recoverable. The District Court confirmed the arbitral award and denied the ISR’s subsequent motion for additional damages, reasoning that the arbitral award was preclusive as to all damages except attorney fees and expenses.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that, due to the scope of the arbitration and the confirmation of the arbitrator’s award, the ISR could not recover further damages for the wrongful injunction that overlapped with claims already addressed in arbitration. However, the Court held that attorney fees and expenses related to resisting the issuance and seeking dissolution of the wrongful injunction were not foreclosed by the arbitration and should be awarded. The Supreme Court modified the lower court’s judgment to include $11,000 in such fees and otherwise affirmed the judgment. View "Big Iron Auction Co. v. Harder Capital" on Justia Law

After being convicted in 1999 of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, an individual was sentenced to life imprisonment and an additional term for the weapon offense. The convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. In subsequent years, the individual filed multiple motions for postconviction relief, including a third motion in 2020 alleging that a key trial witness had recanted. That motion was dismissed as untimely, a decision summarily affirmed by the Nebraska Supreme Court. In June 2025, the individual filed a fourth motion for postconviction relief, challenging the constitutionality of the time limit for such motions under the Nebraska Postconviction Act, arguing that because his convictions predated the enactment of the time bar, it should not apply to him. He also sought an evidentiary hearing and later claimed the district court issued fictitious orders regarding his prior motions.The District Court for Douglas County dismissed the fourth postconviction motion without an evidentiary hearing, finding it time barred under the statutory amendments, and noted that the relief sought was not authorized by the Nebraska Postconviction Act. The court also found that any new claims, such as challenges to alleged fictitious orders, had not been properly raised in the latest motion.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the dismissal and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Supreme Court held that the relief sought was not available under the Nebraska Postconviction Act, and that claims about fictitious orders were not properly before the court because they were not included in the verified postconviction motion. The Court also reiterated that new issues not raised in the verified motion cannot be considered for the first time on appeal, and that the procedural bars in the Act applied to this case. View "State v. McLemore" on Justia Law

A husband and wife disputed the division of assets as part of their divorce proceedings. Before their marriage, the husband purchased two lots of land, Lot 14 and Lot 15, with separate funds and took out loans to build improvements on each. The house and shed on Lot 14, and a barn on Lot 15, were completed before the marriage. After marriage, marital funds were used to pay down the loans, and the husband later paid off remaining balances with his separate, inherited funds. The couple jointly owned and operated the barn on Lot 15 through an LLC.The District Court for Washington County initially classified the land and improvements as the husband’s separate property but credited the marital estate with the payments made from marital funds. The court found the increase in value during the marriage was passive appreciation and thus separate property. The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed this treatment for the land but concluded the barn was marital property. Upon further review, the Nebraska Supreme Court adopted the “source of funds” rule, remanded for consideration of this rule, and affirmed the barn’s marital classification.On remand, a different district judge, relying on the existing record, applied the source of funds rule to the land and improvements and again divided the marital estate equally. The husband appealed, arguing for an evidentiary hearing and contesting the application of the source of funds rule.The Nebraska Supreme Court held that the district court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing, as its mandate did not specify one. The Court clarified that the land remained the husband’s separate property, as it was acquired before marriage and marital funds were not used for its acquisition. The Court applied the source of funds rule to the improvements, recalculated the marital interest, and modified the equalization payment accordingly. The decree of dissolution was affirmed as modified. View "Stava v. Stava" on Justia Law

A man was accused of killing his girlfriend in Omaha, Nebraska, in November 2023. Evidence at trial indicated they had been dating for approximately a year, and he moved into her apartment several months before the incident. The victim was last seen after a supervised visit with her child, and her body was later found wrapped in bedding and plastic bags in a field outside Lincoln. Forensic evidence, GPS data from the victim’s vehicle, and testimony about blood stains and cleaning in the apartment connected the accused to the crime. The autopsy showed extensive blunt force injuries, and expert testimony suggested a claw-type hammer was likely used, although the specific weapon was never recovered.The District Court for Douglas County presided over the jury trial. The defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon (not a firearm) to commit a felony, and sentenced to life imprisonment plus 40 to 50 years, consecutively. Post-trial, the defendant argued that the court erred by denying a mistrial after a police officer’s statement about his truthfulness was inadvertently played for the jury, that the evidence was insufficient to support the deadly weapon conviction, that improper bad acts evidence was admitted, and that counsel was ineffective in investigating and cross-examining the victim’s ex-husband.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial, finding the limiting instructions were sufficient to mitigate any prejudice from the officer’s statement. The court found sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the deadly weapon conviction, even without the weapon’s recovery. It ruled that most relationship evidence was inextricably intertwined with the murder and not inadmissible as “other acts,” and any error regarding evidence about the defendant’s behavior toward a third party was harmless. The record also showed no ineffective assistance of counsel. The convictions and sentences were affirmed. View "State v. Evans" on Justia Law

A nonprofit boating club owned property in Cass County, Nebraska, with access provided by a road known as Dock Road. This road extended from Main Street, past a public boat ramp owned by the city, and terminated at the club’s gate. In 2019, flooding washed out a portion of Dock Road, severing road access to the club’s property, though river access remained available. The city repaired Dock Road to restore access to its public boat ramp but did not repair the road up to the club’s property. The club sought to compel the city to restore road access, arguing the city had a mandatory duty to repair Dock Road under Nebraska law.Following the city’s refusal, the club filed for a writ of mandamus in the District Court for Cass County. The parties filed competing motions for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the city, concluding that the city’s duty under Nebraska statutes was discretionary rather than ministerial, and that the club had not shown Dock Road (particularly the portion past the public boat ramp) was a public street. The court dismissed the club’s complaint and denied its motion for summary judgment.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s ruling. The Court held that the club failed to demonstrate the portion of Dock Road it sought to have repaired was a public street, either by formal dedication or by prescription. Evidence showed that only members and invitees of the club used the disputed section, not the general public. Therefore, the statutory duty cited by the club did not apply, and the city was not obligated to repair the road as requested. The judgment for summary dismissal was affirmed. View "Plattsmouth Boat Club v. City of Plattsmouth" on Justia Law

A married couple divorced after over a decade together, during which the husband served in the U.S. Air Force and earned military retirement benefits. Upon retirement, he elected a Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) covering his spouse and minor child. When the parties separated, they resolved most issues through a settlement agreement, dividing property and assigning the wife a share of the husband’s military retirement. However, they left unresolved who should be the SBP beneficiary after divorce and who should pay the associated premiums. The parties stipulated that SBP coverage for a former spouse would preclude coverage for a future spouse, and that the court could order the wife to reimburse the husband for any portion of the SBP premium.The District Court for Scotts Bluff County incorporated the settlement agreement and ruled that the husband must maintain the wife as an SBP beneficiary until he remarried, at which point he could replace her with a new spouse as beneficiary. The court also required the wife to reimburse the husband for the cost of her SBP coverage. The wife appealed, challenging both the permission for the husband to replace her as beneficiary upon remarriage and the requirement to pay the SBP premiums.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo for abuse of discretion. It held that federal law governing SBPs does not allow a service member to designate a former spouse as beneficiary and later replace that beneficiary with a new spouse, except in limited statutory circumstances. Therefore, the district court abused its discretion by permitting the husband to remove the wife as beneficiary upon remarriage. The court modified the order to strike that provision, affirming the remainder, including the requirement that the wife reimburse the husband for SBP premiums. Affirmed as modified. View "Wahl v. Wahl" on Justia Law

A political subdivision operating an airport in Omaha implemented a monthly charge on off-airport parking companies, including a shuttle operator, for access to dedicated passenger lanes on airport property. The charge was calculated as 10 percent of the parking companies’ gross receipts related to airport business, with exclusions for certain non-airport activities. The airport authority justified the charge as a user fee to comply with federal regulations requiring the airport to be as self-sustaining as possible and to defray operating and administrative expenses.The District Court for Douglas County reviewed the case after the parking company challenged the charge as an unconstitutional tax under the Nebraska Constitution. The court found the airport authority lacked taxing authority and applied a three-part test to distinguish fees from taxes. It determined the charge was not directly allocated to defraying the costs of the specific service provided, nor reasonably proportionate to the benefit received, and more closely resembled a sales tax. The court declared the charge an unconstitutional tax, voided the resolution, ordered permanent injunctive relief, and required the airport authority to return all collected sums.Upon appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the matter de novo, considering both factual and legal issues. The court determined that the charge constituted a user fee, not an unconstitutional tax, emphasizing its optional nature, connection to use of airport facilities, and the benefit received by the parking company. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s ruling and remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint, holding that the airport authority’s charge was a permissible user fee rather than a tax. View "Park'N Go v. Airport Authority" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder for killing his girlfriend, whose body was discovered in her apartment in May 2014. Key evidence at trial included testimony from another girlfriend, placing the defendant at the victim’s apartment in the early morning hours before the victim’s phone activity ceased. The State’s pathologist could not precisely determine the time of death but indicated it was at least several hours before discovery. The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment.Following the conviction, the defendant, with new appellate counsel, pursued a direct appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court, raising several claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Some claims were rejected outright, while others were found to lack sufficient record support. The conviction was affirmed. Subsequently, the defendant began postconviction proceedings in the District Court for Douglas County, filing multiple amended motions, some pro se while represented by counsel, which complicated the procedural history. The district court ultimately allowed the defendant, through counsel, to file a third amended verified motion for postconviction relief, which included numerous claims of ineffective assistance by trial and appellate counsel.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the denial of the third amended postconviction motion. The court held that Burries’ claims were either procedurally barred, insufficiently alleged, or affirmatively refuted by the record. Specifically, claims regarding failure to challenge the pathologist’s testimony and failure to call a witness were barred or lacked merit, as evidence of the time of death uncertainty and witness statements were already in the record, and no prejudice could be shown. The court clarified procedural standards for postconviction filings and affirmed the district court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing and postconviction relief. View "State v. Burries" on Justia Law

After the Nebraska Public Service Commission (PSC) awarded a grant to a telecommunications company to build a broadband network in rural Gage County, the company sought a permit from the Gage County Board of Supervisors to construct its network along a county right-of-way. The permit was initially recommended for approval by the county highway department, but the board ultimately denied the application. The main reason expressed by the board was an objection to the company’s receipt of public funds to build in areas that overlapped with another provider, which had also received public funding from the county.The telecommunications company filed a petition in error in the District Court for Gage County, arguing that the board’s decision exceeded its authority and was arbitrary. The district court agreed, finding that the board had improperly attempted to overturn the PSC’s grant funding decision and that it lacked the authority to do so. The court concluded that the board’s denial was not based on relevant statutory grounds and sustained the petition in error.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed whether the board’s denial could properly be challenged by a petition in error and whether the board acted within its authority. The court held that the county board was required to act in a judicial manner when considering such permit applications and that the company properly pursued relief through a petition in error. The Supreme Court determined that the board’s denial was an improper attempt to nullify the PSC’s funding decision, which the board had no authority to do, and that no other valid basis supported the denial. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision to sustain the petition in error. View "Pinpoint Holdings v. Gage County" on Justia Law