Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

An employee of a railroad company suffered an ankle injury while descending stairs at her workplace. She claimed the injury occurred due to unsafe conditions maintained by her employer. The employee had a history of a preexisting foot condition and prior ankle surgery, but asserted she was asymptomatic before the workplace incident. After the incident, she underwent multiple surgeries and missed work, for which she received short-term disability payments from her employer’s plan.The District Court for Douglas County presided over a jury trial in July 2024. During trial, the court allowed evidence and argument regarding the employee’s preexisting condition, and permitted the jury to consider whether damages should be apportioned due to that condition. The court also excluded the employee’s expert's specific opinion about the number of work years lost, finding insufficient methodological foundation. Both parties moved for directed verdicts, which were denied. The jury found the railroad 5% at fault and the employee 95% at fault, awarding $287,600 in damages. The employee’s motions for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, asserting erroneous jury instructions and exclusion of expert testimony, were denied. The railroad’s post-trial motion to reduce the verdict by the employee’s fault percentage and to set off disability payments was also denied.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that the jury instructions correctly stated the law under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), and there was sufficient evidence to submit questions of comparative fault and apportionment to the jury. The court found no error in the exclusion of the expert’s specific lost worklife expectancy opinion, due to lack of reliable methodology. The court also concluded that the employer’s disability plan language did not entitle the railroad to a setoff from the jury award. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Cramer v. Union Pacific RR. Co." on Justia Law

The case involved a medical negligence and wrongful death claim arising from care provided to a resident at a county-owned skilled nursing facility in Nebraska. The plaintiffs, the decedent’s personal representative and surviving spouse, alleged that substandard care by the facility’s staff caused fatal injuries. The suit was initiated against several entities purportedly associated with the facility, but only two remained as defendants after some were dismissed for procedural reasons.After the complaint was filed in the District Court for Merrick County, the primary remaining defendant, identified as Litzenberg Memorial Long Term Care, moved to dismiss the case. The defendant argued that the complaint failed to demonstrate compliance with the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act’s presuit notice requirement, claiming that notice was not properly served on the appropriate official. Before the court ruled on the motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint to clarify factual allegations regarding compliance with presuit notice and to correct the defendant’s name. The proposed amendment included details suggesting that the Merrick County clerk was an appropriate recipient for notice, and asserted that the defendant should be estopped from contesting notice due to representations made by the clerk.The district court denied the motion for leave to amend and granted the motion to dismiss, finding the amendment would be futile because the notice had not been properly served. On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court determined that under the applicable procedural rule, the plaintiffs were entitled to amend their complaint once as a matter of course prior to any responsive pleading. The court held that filing a motion for leave to amend did not waive this right. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, directing that the plaintiffs be allowed to amend their complaint. View "Cyboron v. Merrick County" on Justia Law

After the Governor of Nebraska issued an executive order in November 2023 generally prohibiting state executive branch employees from working remotely—with certain exceptions left to agency heads—a union representing state employees demanded to bargain with the State regarding this new policy. The State refused, asserting that the existing collective bargaining agreement already gave it the authority to determine work locations, so it had no further obligation to bargain over remote work. In response, the union filed a petition with Nebraska’s Commission of Industrial Relations (CIR), alleging the State committed a prohibited labor practice by refusing to negotiate over a mandatory subject of bargaining.The CIR reviewed the petition and received evidence, including the relevant collective bargaining agreement and testimony about the parties’ negotiations. The CIR found that the agreement expressly gave the State the right to change the site of its workforce, which included the authority to require employees to work at assigned locations and discontinue remote work. The CIR also concluded that, even if remote work was a mandatory subject of bargaining, the matter was already “covered by” the agreement, so the State was not required to bargain further. Alternatively, the CIR found the union had waived its right to bargain by withdrawing a remote work proposal during contract negotiations. The CIR dismissed the union’s petition with prejudice and, finding the petition frivolous and brought in bad faith, ordered the union to pay over $40,000 in attorney fees and costs.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the CIR’s dismissal of the union’s petition, holding that the contract coverage rule applied: because the collective bargaining agreement authorized the State to change employees’ work locations, the State had no obligation to bargain further over the executive order. However, the court reversed the award of attorney fees, concluding that the union’s legal position was not frivolous under Nebraska law. The decision was affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Nebraska Assn. of Pub. Employees v. State" on Justia Law

The case involved a defendant who was charged in two separate criminal complaints, filed by different prosecutors, for conduct arising out of the same incident. The first complaint, brought by a city prosecutor in county court, alleged violations of municipal ordinances—specifically assault and battery, and disorderly conduct. The defendant entered a no contest plea to disorderly conduct as part of a plea agreement, and the assault and battery charge was dismissed with prejudice. Shortly before this plea, the county attorney’s office had filed a separate complaint charging the defendant with felony assault based on the same incident. After the case was later amended to charge first degree felony assault, the defendant argued that prosecuting the felony charge would violate double jeopardy protections.In the District Court for Douglas County, the defendant filed a plea in bar, contending that double jeopardy attached to the dismissed municipal assault and battery charge, thus barring the subsequent felony prosecution. The district court denied the plea, finding that jeopardy never attached to the dismissed charge because the defendant did not plead guilty or face trial on that offense, and the dismissal did not entail a determination of the merits.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the denial of the plea in bar de novo. The court held that jeopardy did not attach to the municipal assault and battery charge because the defendant did not enter a plea to that charge, nor did the court make any factual findings regarding it. The court further explained that a dismissal with prejudice pursuant to a plea agreement does not amount to an acquittal or the attachment of jeopardy unless the court resolves factual elements of the offense. Accordingly, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of the plea in bar, holding that double jeopardy protections did not bar the felony assault prosecution. View "State v. Holland" on Justia Law

Law enforcement responded to a situation at Christopher McKinney’s home after he threatened self-harm and subsequently engaged in an armed standoff. During the incident, Christopher pointed a shotgun at officers and made threats involving several firearms and large amounts of ammunition. Law enforcement executed search and arrest warrants, seizing numerous firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition. Christopher later pleaded no contest to a charge of terroristic threats, with other charges—including use of a firearm to commit a felony—dismissed as part of the agreement. Following his conviction and sentence, the State sought court authorization to destroy the seized firearms and ammunition.After Christopher’s direct appeal concluded, the State filed a petition in the District Court for Otoe County to destroy the seized property, claiming it had been used in the commission of a crime and was no longer needed as evidence. David McKinney, Christopher’s father, moved to intervene, asserting that Christopher had gifted him all interest in the seized property before sentencing. The State objected, arguing David had no ownership interest and thus lacked standing. The district court allowed David to intervene but ultimately ordered destruction of all seized property, finding that most items were derivative contraband used in the commission of a crime, and that Christopher could not transfer ownership while the property was in custody.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed whether David had standing and whether the property was properly classified as contraband. The Supreme Court held that David had standing because he claimed ownership. The Court affirmed the destruction order for all items except one firearm—the Marlin .17 HMR—which had not been used in the crime. As to that item, the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings to determine if a valid transfer to David occurred, which would determine proper disposition of that firearm. View "State v. McKinney" on Justia Law

After the death of Paul A. Knapp, his son Lance, as personal representative of Paul’s estate, sought to probate Paul’s 2010 will, which primarily left property to his first wife and, if she predeceased him, to his children and grandchildren. Paul’s widow, Barbara, filed claims against the estate, specifically for a share of the marital residence’s proceeds and a statutory maintenance fund. These claims were based on a premarital agreement executed before Barbara and Paul’s marriage, as well as a purported subsequent oral agreement that Barbara would receive 40% of the marital residence due to her financial contributions to its remodel and refinancing.The County Court for Dodge County reviewed the case after Lance, as personal representative, disallowed Barbara’s claims. At trial, evidence showed that while Barbara contributed funds to remodel the residence and participated in refinancing, title to the home remained solely in Paul’s name. The premarital agreement referred to certain rights in a non-existent “Article 9.4” and generally maintained that separate property would remain separate unless jointly titled. The county court found the agreement unambiguous, concluded there was no evidence of a mutual mistake justifying reformation, and determined that Barbara was not entitled to proceeds from the marital residence or a maintenance fund. The court also found insufficient evidence of an enforceable oral contract for transfer of the property.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the county court’s decision. The Supreme Court held that the premarital agreement was unambiguous and did not entitle Barbara to the claimed property interests, nor was reformation appropriate. Additionally, the Court found that Barbara had not proven the existence or terms of an enforceable oral contract by clear and convincing evidence. The disallowance of Barbara’s claims was affirmed. View "In re Estate of Knapp" on Justia Law

A man was charged with multiple felonies after he fired gunshots at two social workers who approached his home in a marked government vehicle. Two days earlier, he had been involved in a physical altercation with two teenage girls at a community center, leading to misdemeanor assault charges. After that incident, he and his family experienced public scrutiny, and he reported feeling threatened by comments made by a crowd outside the community center. The day of the shooting, after a call from the mother of his children, two Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) employees arrived at his home to conduct a welfare check. His eldest son, who was not wearing his glasses, believed one of the men had a gun and relayed this to his father, who then fired two shots, injuring one of the social workers.The District Court for Lancaster County conducted a jury trial on the felonies; the defendant pleaded no contest to the misdemeanors. The district court refused to instruct the jury on self-defense or defense of others, concluding the defendant was the only aggressor and lacked an objectively reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary. The jury convicted the defendant of two counts of attempted first-degree assault and two counts of using a firearm to commit a felony. The court imposed consecutive sentences within statutory limits.On direct appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court, the defendant argued the trial court erred in refusing self-defense instructions, imposed excessive sentences, and that trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective. The Supreme Court held that there was no evidence supporting a reasonable belief in the immediate necessity to use deadly force, affirming the refusal to instruct on self-defense. It found the sentences were not an abuse of discretion. It rejected one ineffective assistance claim, found two others insufficiently specific, and concluded the last could not be resolved on the record. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences. View "State v. Lopez" on Justia Law

Four children were removed from their mother’s home in January 2023 due to allegations of physical abuse. The State filed petitions to adjudicate the children as juveniles under Nebraska law, identifying both parents as parties. The juvenile court adjudicated the children and, following a disposition hearing for the father, ordered him to comply with a case plan. This plan required him to address anger issues, participate in therapy and parenting classes, and maintain appropriate care for the children. During the case, the father suffered a medical episode, faced a pending criminal case, and was found temporarily incompetent, but later restored to competency. He had not seen his children since February 2022.After the children spent over 15 months in out-of-home placement, the State filed supplemental petitions to terminate the father’s parental rights. At the termination hearing, a caseworker testified to the father’s minimal and late progress toward the case plan goals, lack of cooperation, and absence of meaningful relationship with the children. The father testified regarding his medical issues and recent efforts but admitted to violating a no-contact order and being incarcerated.The County Court for York County found statutory grounds for termination based on neglect, failure to correct conditions, and the children’s lengthy out-of-home placement. The court also found termination to be in the children’s best interests, emphasizing the father’s lack of contact and insufficient rehabilitation efforts. The father appealed.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the lower court’s order. The court held that the juvenile court’s adoption of the case plan did not violate due process, that the statutory bases for termination were satisfied, and that termination of parental rights was in the children’s best interests. The court’s order was affirmed. View "In re Interest of Joel T." on Justia Law

A married couple purchased a residential property in Omaha, Nebraska, in 1988. Their lot bordered land owned by a company and its predecessor entities. After moving in, the couple began using and improving a portion of the neighboring company’s land—referred to as the Disputed Property. They cleared debris, treated weeds, planted grass, installed a fence (beyond their lot line), built a treehouse, and used the area for family activities. Over the years, they continued to maintain and landscape the Disputed Property, planting trees and a garden, and mowing it regularly. The couple had no permission from the legal owners for this use and believed the area was neglected and unmaintained by anyone else.In 2022, the couple and their family trust filed a lawsuit in the District Court for Douglas County to quiet title to the Disputed Property, claiming ownership by adverse possession. The defendant companies argued that the couple’s use had been permissive since 1997, citing letters sent to adjacent property owners offering permission for limited use until development began. The couple denied receiving any such letters. The district court found in favor of the couple and their trust, concluding that they had proven adverse possession for the statutory period of at least ten years.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the facts and legal findings de novo. It determined that the couple’s use of the land was actual, continuous, exclusive, notorious, and adverse under a claim of ownership for the required period. The court found the couple’s testimony more credible regarding non-receipt of any permission letters. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order, quieting title to the Disputed Property in the couple’s trust. The main holding is that the couple acquired title to the Disputed Property by adverse possession. View "Goldie v. McNeil & Co. Builders" on Justia Law

This case involves a series of crimes committed over several days in Omaha, Nebraska, in June 2021, by three teenagers. The defendant was charged with 11 counts, including first degree murder, assault, discharging a firearm, theft, robbery, and weapons offenses. The crimes began with the armed theft of a white Volkswagen Jetta, which was later used in two drive-by shootings in rival gang neighborhoods, resulting in one death and several injuries. Shortly after, the group stole a Toyota Scion, and all three suspects were apprehended when law enforcement tracked the stolen vehicle. Key evidence included surveillance footage, forensic analysis of shell casings, cell phone data, and testimony from one co-defendant.The District Court for Douglas County consolidated the defendant’s trial with that of a co-defendant, over objections seeking separate trials and severance of theft-related charges. The court denied these motions, finding the crimes were part of a common scheme or plan, and that any prejudice could be addressed with jury instructions. During trial, the defense objected to the admission of evidence found in the Jetta after a break in police custody, and to police officers’ identifications of the defendant in surveillance footage, arguing improper foundation and opinion testimony. The court overruled these objections. The defendant’s request for a jury instruction clarifying that mere presence is insufficient for aiding and abetting liability was also denied.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences. The court held that joinder of charges and defendants was proper, as the offenses were sufficiently connected and no compelling actual prejudice was demonstrated. It found the chain of custody for the evidence adequate and the admission of lay opinion testimony by police officers permissible. The court also determined that the jury instructions given were appropriate and not misleading. View "State v. White" on Justia Law