Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a university in Nebraska instituted a policy requiring all students to be vaccinated against COVID-19 by a specified deadline, with the only exemptions allowed for medical reasons or until a vaccine received full FDA approval. Religious exemptions were not permitted. Students who failed to comply were unenrolled and barred from campus, and some had holds placed on their accounts, preventing access to transcripts. One student complied with the mandate but suffered adverse effects and was medically exempted from further doses. Another student withdrew voluntarily before the deadline.After the university enforced the mandate, several students sought injunctive relief in the District Court for Douglas County to prevent their unenrollment, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The court denied relief, finding that any contract included the Emergency Use Authorization waiver agreements and that the students breached the contract by not being vaccinated after FDA approval. An initial appeal was dismissed by the Nebraska Supreme Court for lack of a final, appealable order. The students then consolidated their actions and filed an operative complaint alleging breach of implied contract, denial of due process, conversion, negligence, and violations of the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act (NCPA). The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice and denied leave to amend.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo and found that the students plausibly alleged claims for breach of an implied contract and conversion, based on the university’s unilateral modification of conditions mid-semester and the withholding of transcripts. The court affirmed the dismissal of the negligence and NCPA claims, finding them preempted by the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, and held that the due process claim was abandoned on appeal. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings on the breach of contract and conversion claims. View "Ramaekers v. Creighton University" on Justia Law

The case involves a woman, M.S., who was the subject of a petition filed by the State in May 2024, alleging she was mentally ill and dangerous under Nebraska law. The petition was supported by statements from M.S.’ daughter, who described recent concerning behavior, including M.S. bringing a gun to her daughter’s home, appearing paranoid, and exhibiting signs of being out of touch with reality. M.S. was admitted to a psychiatric facility pending commitment proceedings, and a hearing was held before the Mental Health Board of the Fourth Judicial District. During the proceedings, M.S. was represented by counsel and objected to certain testimony on confrontation and hearsay grounds.The Mental Health Board overruled M.S.’ motion for a continuance and proceeded with the commitment hearing, where it heard testimony from a psychiatrist, M.S.’ daughter, and M.S. herself. The Board found, by clear and convincing evidence, that M.S. suffered from bipolar I disorder, manic with psychosis, and was dangerous to herself and others. The Board ordered inpatient treatment and authorized forced medication. M.S. appealed to the District Court for Douglas County, arguing that her rights to confrontation were violated, that inadmissible hearsay was admitted, and that the evidence was insufficient to support her commitment. The district court affirmed the Board’s decision, ruling that any errors in admitting certain evidence were harmless because the facts were otherwise established in the record.On further appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s decision. It held that confrontation rights under both the U.S. and Nebraska Constitutions, as extended by statute to mental health commitment proceedings, are trial rights that do not apply to pretrial hearings. The court further found that the challenged statements by family members were admissible under the medical purpose exception to the hearsay rule. The court concluded that clear and convincing evidence supported the findings that M.S. was mentally ill and dangerous, and that the treatment ordered was the least restrictive alternative. The district court’s order was affirmed. View "In re Interest of M.S." on Justia Law

Two brothers operated a farming and cattle partnership, with one managing the finances and records and the other handling outside operations. The financial brother, assisted by his daughter, maintained control over the partnership’s handwritten ledgers and inventory records, while the other brother relied on the information provided. Over several years, the managing brother made false entries in the ledgers, diverted partnership income into personal accounts, and concealed certain ownership interests in partnership assets from his brother. Suspicious discrepancies surfaced when the outside-operating brother noticed substantial errors affecting his reported net worth, prompting him to seek dissolution of the partnership and to sue for damages.The District Court for Thurston County conducted a bench trial, hearing evidence from the parties and expert witnesses. It found that the managing brother and his daughter had exclusive control over the partnership’s finances and intentionally concealed information. The court concluded that the outside-operating brother could not reasonably have discovered the wrongdoing earlier, given his lack of access to original records and his trust in the managing brother. The court awarded damages to the plaintiff under several theories, including breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent concealment, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, conversion, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract, and imposed joint and several liability on both defendants.Upon appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and legal questions de novo. It held that the claims for fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment were not barred by the statute of limitations, as discovery of the fraud occurred within the allowed period. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s determinations regarding liability, damages, and the denial of post-trial motions, upholding the judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The court specifically affirmed the joint and several liability for both defendants and the calculation of damages, rejecting the appellants’ arguments regarding settlements, contract defenses, and the statute of limitations. View "Sebade v. Sebade" on Justia Law

A defendant was convicted following a jury trial after a fatal altercation with his father during a family gathering in Lincoln, Nebraska. The dispute began as a verbal argument, escalated when the father punched the defendant, and culminated when the defendant stabbed his father with a steak knife. The father died from a single stab wound to the chest. It was undisputed that the father initiated the physical confrontation and that the defendant was holding the knife when the fatal injury occurred. The defendant asserted multiple defenses at trial: self-defense, accident, lack of intent to kill, and sudden quarrel. Witnesses provided conflicting accounts about the defendant's statements and actions during the incident.In the District Court for Lancaster County, the defendant sought to introduce evidence of his father's history of violence and abuse, arguing it was relevant to his claim of self-defense. The court limited the admissible evidence to acts occurring within 10 years of the incident, citing remoteness and concerns of unfair prejudice. The court also refused to instruct the jury on unintentional manslaughter, finding that the evidence did not warrant such an instruction. After deliberation, the jury found the defendant guilty of first-degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and he was sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment.Reviewing the case, the Nebraska Supreme Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of older acts, as remoteness affects weight, not admissibility, and the court properly balanced probative value against prejudice. The refusal to instruct on unintentional manslaughter was affirmed because the evidence supported intentional killing. The court found sufficient evidence to sustain both convictions. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were rejected where the record was sufficient to do so; other claims were not addressed due to inadequate specificity or insufficient record. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "State v. Kruger" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with two counts of theft by shoplifting, third or subsequent offense, after stealing sunglasses from an optometrist’s office, and an additional count of resisting arrest. He ultimately pled guilty to one count of theft by shoplifting, with the other charges dismissed as part of a plea agreement. At sentencing, the court considered evidence of his prior convictions, making the current offense a Class IV felony. The defendant requested a continuance to attend inpatient substance abuse treatment, citing recent efforts to address his addiction, but the court denied the request, noting inconsistencies in his statements about substance use and skepticism about his motives.Previously, the District Court for Lancaster County accepted the defendant’s guilty plea, found him guilty, and, after an enhancement and sentencing hearing, sentenced him to a determinate term of two years’ imprisonment. The court found substantial and compelling reasons why probation was not appropriate, including the defendant’s criminal history, risk of reoffending, and doubts about his sincerity regarding treatment. The defendant appealed, arguing that the court erred in denying his motion for a continuance, failing to follow statutory requirements for sentencing, and not providing required advisements.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the denial of the continuance was not an abuse of discretion, as the defendant failed to show prejudice and had control over the timing of his treatment efforts. The court also found that the district court sufficiently stated its reasoning for denying probation and imposing imprisonment, and that any errors in failing to provide advisements were forfeited and, in any event, harmless. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "State v. Dawn" on Justia Law

The case concerns a man who was convicted of first degree murder for killing his wife in 2023. On the night of the incident, the couple went out to dinner and then to a bar, where both consumed alcohol. The husband became angry, accusing his wife of infidelity. After leaving the bar together, they returned home, where two altercations occurred. The next day, the wife was found dead on the bedroom floor, having suffered blunt force head injuries and manual strangulation. The husband admitted to hitting her but denied intending to kill her, and claimed not to remember strangling her. Forensic evidence indicated defensive wounds on the victim, and the husband’s statements and injuries were consistent with him being the aggressor.The District Court for Hamilton County held a jury trial, during which the prosecution introduced evidence of the husband’s prior acts of domestic abuse: one incident in 1997 involving his ex-wife, and another in 2015 involving the victim. The court found these prior acts were proved by clear and convincing evidence and admitted them for purposes other than propensity, such as intent and motive, providing limiting instructions to the jury. The jury found the husband guilty of first degree murder, and the court sentenced him to life imprisonment, initially granting credit for time served. The defendant appealed, challenging the admission of prior bad acts evidence, the sufficiency of the evidence for premeditation, the refusal to instruct the jury on self-defense, and the denial of a change of venue.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the prior bad acts evidence, as it was relevant for proper purposes and not unduly prejudicial. The court also found the evidence sufficient to support a finding of premeditation, and that a self-defense instruction was not warranted by the evidence. The denial of a change of venue was upheld. However, the Supreme Court found plain error in granting credit for time served against a life sentence and modified the sentence to eliminate that credit, affirming the judgment as modified. View "State v. Adams" on Justia Law

The dispute centers on the taxable valuation of two apartment complex parcels owned by the taxpayers in Sarpy County, Nebraska. For tax years 2020 and 2021, the Sarpy County Assessor set the values at $8,953,000 and $5,263,000, which the taxpayers believed were excessive. They protested these assessments to the Sarpy County Board of Equalization, providing evidence of actual rental income that was lower than market estimates. A referee for the Board recommended adopting the taxpayers’ lower valuations, and the Board accepted these recommendations, setting the values at $7,450,829 and $3,559,566.The Assessor appealed the Board’s decision to the Nebraska Tax Equalization and Review Commission (TERC). At the TERC hearing, both parties agreed on using the income approach for valuation but disagreed on whether to use actual or market-typical income figures. The Assessor relied on market data, while the Board’s referee used actual income figures verified against an online database. TERC found that the Board’s methodology was not a professionally accepted mass appraisal method and that the actual income figures were not shown to be consistent with market rates. TERC vacated and reversed the Board’s valuations, reinstating the Assessor’s original higher values.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed TERC’s decision for errors on the record. The court held that TERC erred in finding the Board’s valuations unreasonable or arbitrary, as the Board’s referee had provided a reasonable basis for using actual income figures, verified against market data. The Supreme Court reversed TERC’s decision and remanded the case with directions to affirm the Board’s lower valuations for both parcels for the relevant tax years. View "Pinnacle Enters. v. Sarpy Cty. Bd. of Equal." on Justia Law

D S Avionics Unlimited LLC owned a 1964 Piper PA-30 aircraft, which was insured under a policy issued by U.S. Specialty Insurance Company for the period between June 27, 2014, and June 27, 2015. In November 2014, DSA delivered the aircraft to a mechanic for maintenance at an Omaha airport. After a dispute between the mechanic and the airport owner, the mechanic was locked out of the hangar, and the aircraft was moved outside. When DSA attempted to retrieve the aircraft, a truck blocked its removal, and the airport owner refused to move it until storage fees were paid. The aircraft subsequently disappeared from view, and the airport owner informed authorities and the insurer that he was holding the aircraft pending payment. DSA reported the aircraft stolen and submitted a claim to USSIC, which was denied.USSIC filed suit in the District Court for Douglas County, Nebraska, seeking a declaration of noncoverage. DSA counterclaimed for breach of contract and bad faith. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court ruled in favor of USSIC, finding that DSA’s claim was not covered because there was no “accident” under the policy and that the Conversion Exclusion applied. The court also found that DSA failed to prove damages and that USSIC had an arguable basis for denial. DSA appealed, and the matter was moved to the Nebraska Supreme Court’s docket.The Nebraska Supreme Court held that DSA’s claim was within the policy’s coverage for “direct physical loss” caused by an “accident,” as defined by the policy. The court found that the airport owner’s actions constituted an “accident” from DSA’s perspective and that the Conversion Exclusion did not apply, as conceded by USSIC. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s order and remanded for further proceedings regarding USSIC’s alleged bad faith and any damages due to DSA. View "U.S. Specialty Ins. Co. v. D S Avionics" on Justia Law