Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

After the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court entered an award against Mauro Rubio and Cono Contracting, LLC in favor of Catarino Lopez, Rubio alleged the award was procured by fraud, irregularity, and was inequitable. Rubio’s attorney withdrew unexpectedly at trial, leaving Rubio unrepresented. Rubio claimed Lopez exaggerated his injuries and sought to vacate the award, citing Nebraska statutory and equitable grounds. The award had been filed in the District Court for Douglas County.Lopez moved to dismiss Rubio’s independent action in the district court, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to vacate the Workers’ Compensation Court’s award, asserting the district court’s authority was limited to enforcement. The district court agreed, finding it had no authority to vacate or modify the compensation court award and that Rubio’s complaint failed to state a claim for relief under § 25-2001. Rubio appealed to the Nebraska Court of Appeals. Prior to briefing, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, reasoning that the district court lacked jurisdiction to vacate the award and, consequently, the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. Rubio’s motion for rehearing was denied.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the district court had equitable jurisdiction to vacate the compensation court’s award once it had been filed as a judgment in the district court, pursuant to § 48-188. The Court held that the district court’s jurisdiction was not limited to enforcement and that it could entertain an independent action to vacate such an award. The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ dismissal and retained the case for further proceedings, allowing briefing on whether Rubio had stated a claim for relief. View "1 Cono Contracting v. Lopez" on Justia Law

The case concerned a request from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for Nebraska’s statewide voter registration list, including sensitive personal information. Before the Secretary of State released the list, a membership organization and a registered voter filed suit, seeking to block or limit the disclosure, alleging that such release would violate Nebraska statutes restricting the dissemination and use of voter information. They argued that the DOJ was not entitled to all the requested data under federal law and sought declaratory and injunctive relief.In the District Court for Lancaster County, the Secretary moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing and had failed to join the DOJ as an indispensable party. The court agreed that the plaintiffs did not have standing, finding that they had not alleged a concrete injury and that concerns over possible future public disclosure or misuse were speculative. The court also found that Common Cause had not adequately pleaded associational standing. However, the court rejected the Secretary’s argument that the DOJ (or the U.S. Attorney General) was an indispensable party. The case was dismissed without prejudice on standing grounds, and the plaintiffs’ motions for a temporary injunction and summary judgment were denied.On appeal, while the matter was pending before the Nebraska Supreme Court, the Secretary released the voter list to the DOJ. The Nebraska Supreme Court determined that the case was moot because the list had already been disclosed, eliminating any live controversy or possibility of meaningful relief. The court declined to apply the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine and dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal. The main holding is that, due to the completed disclosure, the action no longer presented a justiciable issue. View "Common Cause v. Evnen" on Justia Law

The case concerns a defendant convicted of second degree murder, kidnapping, and first degree false imprisonment following incidents in Imperial, Nebraska, in November 2019. The prosecution’s case was based on events involving the defendant’s drug activities and relationships with several individuals, notably his girlfriend and two other women, one of whom was the murder victim. Key evidence included testimony from a co-defendant who had accepted a plea agreement, and a recording of the defendant’s police interview. The jury found the defendant guilty, and he was sentenced to significant prison terms for each conviction.After his convictions and sentences were affirmed by the Nebraska Supreme Court on direct appeal, the defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief in the District Court for Chase County. In this motion, he raised several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, including both trial and appellate counsel. He argued, among other things, that his trial counsel did not properly advise him regarding his right to testify, failed to object to or seek redaction of prejudicial statements from his police interview, failed to present evidence of a witness’s prior acts, and did not address his mental health or medication needs during trial. He also claimed appellate counsel failed to properly argue issues relating to jury instructions and ineffective assistance on appeal.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the denial of postconviction relief de novo. The court held that many of the defendant’s claims were procedurally barred because they had been raised or decided on direct appeal or lacked sufficient specificity. For the remaining claims, the court found that either the necessary factual allegations were lacking or, assuming the facts as alleged, the defendant was not entitled to relief. The court affirmed the District Court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing and postconviction relief. View "State v. German" on Justia Law

Two individuals—a student enrolled in a nursing program and a prospective paramedic student—challenged a community college’s policy requiring proof of COVID-19 vaccination for participation in certain clinical programs. The student alleged she was removed from the nursing program after failing to provide proof of vaccination and not receiving a clear response to her request for a medical exemption. She also claimed that the college placed her in clinical rotations at facilities with strict vaccination requirements, while other students were placed at locations accommodating the unvaccinated. The prospective paramedic student did not complete the vaccination requirement, did not seek an exemption, and was told that proof of vaccination or a successful exemption was necessary for acceptance.The District Court for Lancaster County allowed amendment of the initial complaint, but ultimately dismissed the amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The court found that the contract and negligence claims were barred by sovereign immunity, that the due process and equal protection claims lacked sufficient factual allegations to proceed, and that the “ultra vires” claim was not cognizable. The court denied further leave to amend, finding amendment would be futile. A timely postjudgment motion to alter or amend was denied, and the plaintiffs appealed.The Nebraska Supreme Court, after reviewing for plain error due to briefing deficiencies, found no plain error in the lower court’s dismissal of the case. The Court concluded that the district court properly dismissed all claims and that the appeal was timely. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Fischer v. Southeast Community College" on Justia Law

A deputy sheriff sergeant was terminated from his employment after an incident where he encountered two individuals with active “time pay” warrants for failure to pay fines. Despite confirming the existence and validity of the warrants, which were issued by a county court and directed to any law enforcement officer, he told the individuals that he would not arrest them because he believed doing so would be pointless. The interaction was recorded on his body camera. After the sheriff’s office conducted an internal investigation, the sergeant was found to have violated standard operating procedures by neglecting his duty.The sergeant appealed the termination to the county sheriff’s merit commission, which upheld the decision after a hearing. He then filed a petition in error with the District Court for Lancaster County, arguing that the evidence did not support his termination, that due process was denied because he was not given notice regarding issues of credibility or prior investigations, that the commission’s decision was void for untimely delivery, and that he had not waived any objections by failing to object during the administrative hearing. The district court found sufficient evidence supported the commission’s decision, determined the procedures were constitutionally adequate, rejected the argument about untimely delivery because no specific deadline for notification was violated, and concluded there was no prejudice regarding any waiver issue.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that sufficient evidence supported the finding that the sergeant neglected his statutory duty to execute the warrants, which justified termination under the governing procedures. The court also held that due process requirements were satisfied, as the sergeant received notice of the charges, an explanation of the evidence, and an opportunity to be heard. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, finding no prejudicial error in the proceedings. View "Schmuecker v. Lancaster County" on Justia Law