Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case involves Riley Lenhart, who was convicted of intentional child abuse resulting in the death of his 10-month-old daughter, M.L. On June 19, 2022, M.L. died from ligature strangulation while in Lenhart's care. Lenhart claimed he left M.L. briefly to shower, and upon returning, found her not breathing. Emergency personnel were unable to revive her. Lenhart was arrested and charged with intentional child abuse resulting in death.The District Court for Dawes County handled the trial. Before the trial, Lenhart successfully moved to exclude certain character evidence, including his status as a sex offender and the fact that a sexual assault examination was conducted on M.L. During the trial, a forensic pathologist mentioned the sexual assault examination, prompting Lenhart to object and move for a mistrial. The court struck the statement and instructed the jury to disregard it but denied the mistrial motion. Instead, the court ordered the State to stipulate that such examinations are routine and that no evidence of sexual assault was found. Lenhart objected to this stipulation.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the mistrial motion, as the jury was instructed to disregard the improper statement, and it is presumed they followed this instruction. The court also found that any error in the stipulation was harmless, given the overwhelming evidence against Lenhart, including the cause of M.L.'s death, Lenhart's sole care of M.L. at the time, and his failure to call 911. The court affirmed Lenhart's conviction and sentence. View "State v. Lenhart" on Justia Law

Dylan R. Isham and Billy C. Jack entered into an agreement to exchange Isham’s manufactured home for Jack’s travel trailer, with an option for Jack to purchase a garage attached to the manufactured home for $3,000 by May 11, 2020. Jack declined the option via a message on June 3, 2019, which Isham read but did not respond to. In February 2021, Isham contacted Jack to either receive payment for the garage or remove it, leading to a dispute as Jack had integrated the garage into his home.The District Court for Butler County found in favor of Jack, concluding that Isham had abandoned his rights to the garage by failing to act on them for over 20 months. The court noted that Isham’s lack of communication and actions indicated abandonment, and it would be inequitable to enforce Isham’s right to remove the garage after such a delay. The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, agreeing that Isham had waived his right under the contract and that the district court’s finding of abandonment was not clearly erroneous.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court held that Jack did not meet the burden of proving abandonment, as mere nonuse and the passage of time are insufficient to establish abandonment without clear and convincing evidence of intent. The court found that Isham’s actions, such as exploring options to move the garage, did not demonstrate an intent to abandon. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals with directions to reverse the district court’s decision and remand for further proceedings to determine the value of the garage, given its integration into Jack’s home. View "Isham v. Jack" on Justia Law

A housekeeper employed by a nursing and rehabilitation facility experienced a respiratory incident after wearing a sterilized N95 mask at work. She felt a burning sensation and had difficulty breathing, leading to hospitalization. She subsequently sought medical treatment for persistent respiratory issues and was diagnosed with moderate persistent asthma. She filed a petition in the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court, claiming her injury was work-related and seeking various benefits.The Workers’ Compensation Court held a trial where the housekeeper and her former supervisor testified. Medical evidence from her treating physicians was presented, including a report from her family care physician, who opined that her respiratory issues were associated with the mask incident. The pulmonologist, who treated her later, agreed that her symptoms began on the day of the incident but did not opine on causation. The employer denied the work-related nature of the injury and suggested a preexisting condition but did not provide contrary expert testimony.The Workers’ Compensation Court found that the housekeeper’s respiratory issues were caused by the work incident and awarded her temporary total and permanent partial disability benefits, past medical expenses, and future medical care. The court found the medical expert’s opinion credible and supported by the evidence, including the absence of preexisting respiratory issues and the timing of symptoms.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision. It held that the Workers’ Compensation Court did not err in finding the medical expert’s opinion had sufficient foundation and was persuasive. The court also found no clear error in the determination of a 30-percent loss of earning capacity, as the compensation court had considered the relevant factors and evidence. View "Prinz v. Omaha Operations" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with obstructing the administration of law in violation of a municipal ordinance. The incident occurred when law enforcement officers attempted to arrest the defendant's son, who had a felony warrant. The defendant, holding a large dog, approached the officers, yelled at them, and did not comply with their commands to step back. This behavior continued until the officers threatened to shoot the dog. The defendant also picked up his son's backpack despite orders to leave it, further interfering with the officers' duties.The County Court for Douglas County found the defendant guilty, concluding that his actions constituted willful and defiant refusals to comply with lawful commands, thereby obstructing the officers. The court relied on the language of the ordinance and referenced a similar case, State v. Ferrin, to support its findings. The defendant was fined $250 and ordered to pay court costs.On appeal, the District Court for Douglas County affirmed the conviction. The defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove intent, that the trial court improperly applied a different statute, and that his conviction violated due process and his First Amendment rights. The district court found that the evidence supported the conviction and that the trial court had not erred in its application of the law.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, as the defendant's actions interfered with the officers' duties and demonstrated intent to obstruct. The court also found no merit in the defendant's arguments regarding the application of a different statute and constitutional violations, noting that these issues were not properly raised in the lower courts. View "State v. Yah" on Justia Law

A swine producer experienced a disease outbreak in its sow facility and sued two manure management companies, alleging the outbreak was caused by their failure to follow biosecurity protocols. The swine producer sought $1.5 million in damages under breach of contract and negligence theories. The claims against one company were dismissed, and the remaining company, Frost, moved for summary judgment on both theories.The district court for Burt County granted summary judgment in favor of Frost, finding no contractual relationship between Frost and the swine producer and concluding that Frost owed no duty to the producer. The swine producer appealed, and Frost cross-appealed on the issue of causation.The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment on the breach of contract claim but reversed on the negligence claim, finding that Frost owed a duty of reasonable care. The court noted that the standard of care and whether Frost breached it were factual questions for the jury. However, it declined to address Frost’s cross-appeal on causation, as the district court had not ruled on that issue.On further review, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court agreed with the district court that Frost was entitled to summary judgment on the negligence claims. It found no evidence of an industry standard prohibiting manure pumpers from pumping at a sow facility after a hog finishing facility and concluded that Frost did not breach the standard of care by failing to inform the producer of his previous pumping location. The case was remanded with directions to affirm the grant of summary judgment. View "Ronnfeldt Farms v. Arp" on Justia Law

Deontae Rush appealed from convictions of first-degree murder and using a firearm to commit a felony. He had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder conviction and 25-35 years for the firearm offense, to be served consecutively. Rush challenged various evidentiary rulings made by the district court. He also argued that the lower court should have granted his motion for a mistrial due to statements made by the prosecutor during closing arguments. Rush further alleged ineffective assistance of counsel on numerous grounds. He also argued that the evidence was insufficient to show that he used a firearm beyond a reasonable doubt.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decisions. It found no merit in most of the assignments of error, while it concluded that it could not resolve certain claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. The court noted that any rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the weapons offense based on the evidence presented. It also noted that a trial court has significant discretion over matters such as evidentiary determinations and whether to grant a motion for a mistrial. Since it found no abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court did not disturb these decisions by the district court. View "State v. Rush" on Justia Law

A group of 29 physicians challenged a proposed ballot initiative in Nebraska that sought to add a new section to the state constitution, protecting unborn children from abortion in the second and third trimesters, except in cases of medical emergency, sexual assault, or incest. The physicians argued that the initiative violated the single subject rule and would create voter confusion.The Nebraska Supreme Court had previously reviewed a similar initiative titled "Protect the Right to Abortion" and found it did not violate the single subject rule. The physicians conceded that if the first initiative was allowed, the second should be as well, given their structural similarities. They filed for a writ of mandamus to prevent the second initiative from appearing on the ballot, arguing it should be withheld based on the same principles applied to the first initiative.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that the second initiative did not violate the single subject rule. The court applied the "natural and necessary" test and found that all parts of the initiative related to the same subject. The court also noted that arguments about potential voter confusion were not separate requirements for determining the legal sufficiency of the measure. Additionally, the court found that other arguments presented by the physicians were not ripe for review, as they were based on contingent future events.Ultimately, the Nebraska Supreme Court denied the writ of mandamus, allowing the second initiative to appear on the ballot. The court dissolved the alternative writ and concluded that the Secretary of State did not have a duty to withhold the initiative from the general election ballot. View "State ex rel. Constance v. Evnen" on Justia Law

Two relators challenged a ballot initiative proposing to amend the Nebraska Constitution to include a right to abortion. The initiative sought to establish a fundamental right to abortion until fetal viability or when necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient, without state interference. The relators argued that the initiative violated the single subject rule of the Nebraska Constitution and contained confusing language.In the lower courts, the relators presented their objections to the Nebraska Secretary of State, who decided to certify the initiative for the ballot. The relators then filed petitions for writs of mandamus to compel the Secretary of State to remove the initiative from the ballot. The Nebraska Supreme Court granted leave to file the actions and issued alternative writs of mandamus, ordering the Secretary of State to show cause why the initiative should not be removed.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that the initiative did not violate the single subject rule. The court found that the initiative's provisions were naturally and necessarily related to the general subject of creating a constitutional right to abortion. The court also rejected the argument that the initiative's language was confusing and misleading. Consequently, the court denied the writs of mandamus and dissolved the alternative writs by operation of law. View "State ex rel. Brooks v. Evnen" on Justia Law

A self-described "lay midwife" was charged by the State of Nebraska with practicing a profession without a credential after being ordered to cease and desist. The midwife, who did not hold a state-issued credential, provided prenatal and postnatal care and assisted with childbirth. The charges were based on her alleged violation of the Uniform Credentialing Act (UCA).In Madison County, the district court sustained the midwife's plea in abatement, finding that "nurse midwives" were not required to hold credentials under the UCA. The court also suggested that the UCA would be unconstitutionally vague if it required a credential for practicing "nurse midwifery." Similarly, in Douglas County, the district court sustained a plea in abatement on the same grounds, dismissing the charges against the midwife.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the district courts had misconstrued the UCA. The court held that the UCA requires individuals to hold a credential to engage in practices such as attending childbirth and providing related care, which fall under the scope of medicine and surgery, advanced practice registered nursing, and certified nurse midwifery. The court also found that the evidence presented was sufficient to show probable cause that the midwife had committed the charged crime.The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the district courts' orders sustaining the pleas in abatement and dismissing the charges. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, including consideration of the midwife's motions to quash and demurrers. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

The case involves Kolton Barnes, who was convicted of first-degree murder, intentional cruelty to an animal, two counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, two counts of negligent child abuse, and evidence tampering. The charges stemmed from the death of his fiancée, Kayla Matulka, and his dog, both found in their home. Barnes claimed self-defense, stating Matulka attacked him after killing the dog. The prosecution argued Barnes killed Matulka after she broke up with him.In the District Court for Saunders County, Nebraska, Barnes sought access to Matulka’s mental health records to support his defense. The court granted partial access but denied a motion to compel further records from an out-of-state insurer, citing jurisdictional issues and the sufficiency of already provided records. Barnes also moved to exclude evidence of prior threats he made to a former girlfriend, which the court allowed, finding it relevant to motive and intent. At trial, the jury found Barnes guilty on all counts except for the two counts of intentional child abuse, where he was found guilty of the lesser charge of negligent child abuse.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to compel further records, as Barnes had ample evidence of Matulka’s mental health issues. The court also upheld the admission of prior threat evidence, finding it relevant to Barnes' motive and intent. The court found no error in the exclusion of a document about demonic possession or in the admission of a timeline of cell phone activities. Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and due process violations were dismissed, as the court found no plain error. The evidence was deemed sufficient to support the murder conviction, and the sentences for use of a deadly weapon were not excessive. The court affirmed Barnes' convictions and sentences. View "State v. Barnes" on Justia Law