Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Sarah A. Backhaus and David R. Backhaus were married in 2010 and separated in February 2021. Sarah filed for divorce in April 2022. During the marriage, David received an inheritance, which he deposited into a jointly held savings account (account x4020). At the time of their separation, the account had a balance of $323,571.70. David claimed that the funds in the account were nonmarital, originating from his inheritance, while Sarah contended that the funds were marital property.The district court for Douglas County held a two-day trial in March 2023. David testified about his inheritance and its source, explaining that the funds were deposited into account x4020. He also described various expenditures made from the inheritance, including cars, his education, and the startup costs for Sarah's business. The district court found David's testimony credible and determined that the funds in account x4020 were nonmarital property, awarding the balance to David.Sarah appealed to the Nebraska Court of Appeals, which reversed the district court's decision. The Court of Appeals concluded that David's testimony was insufficient to establish the nonmarital nature of the funds in account x4020, as it lacked specific details about the inheritance amount, its expenditure, and the account into which it was deposited. The Court of Appeals directed that the funds be included in the marital estate and divided equitably.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court held that David's testimony, along with circumstantial evidence, was sufficient to prove by the greater weight of the evidence that the funds in account x4020 were nonmarital. The court emphasized that credible testimony alone can establish a nonmarital interest in property. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals with directions to affirm the district court's order. View "Backhaus v. Backhaus" on Justia Law

In this case, the appellant, Keith L. Allen, shot and killed Brett Allen Torres in May 2020. Allen was subsequently prosecuted and convicted of first-degree murder and use of a firearm to commit a felony. Separately, Victoria A. Czech, as the personal representative of Torres' estate, sued Allen for wrongful death and conscious suffering. Czech also sought and obtained an order of prejudgment attachment on Allen’s assets, fearing he might conceal or remove them.The district court for Lincoln County, Nebraska, overruled Allen’s pretrial motions, including a motion for change of venue and a motion in limine to exclude evidence of his convictions. The court also granted Czech’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, finding no material issue of fact regarding Allen’s responsibility for Torres’ death. Allen’s subsequent objection and motion to vacate the order of prejudgment attachment were also overruled.Allen appealed these decisions during the trial (case No. S-23-1037) and after a jury awarded Czech $130,000 in damages (case No. S-24-047). The Nebraska Supreme Court dismissed the first appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as the orders challenged were not final. In the second appeal, the court affirmed the district court’s decisions, finding no abuse of discretion or error in the rulings.The Nebraska Supreme Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Allen’s motion for change of venue, as Allen failed to provide evidence of pervasive pretrial publicity. The court also found that Allen did not preserve his claim regarding the motion in limine because he did not object to the evidence at the summary judgment hearing. The court affirmed the partial summary judgment, noting the record was insufficient to review the decision. The court also found Allen’s claims regarding the prejudgment attachment moot due to the final judgment. Finally, the court held that the district court retained jurisdiction despite Allen’s appeal, as the appeal was not from a final order. View "Czech v. Allen" on Justia Law

An inmate, Trever Ballheim, appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus by the district court. Ballheim was originally sentenced to two different terms: 2 to 2 years for possession of a controlled substance and 10 to 11 years for being a habitual criminal. The district court later issued an order nunc pro tunc, changing the sentence for possession to 10 to 11 years, which Ballheim argued was void as it was issued without his presence and beyond the court's term.The district court dismissed Ballheim's petition without a hearing, citing that habeas corpus is not available for mere errors in judgment. Ballheim contended that the nunc pro tunc order was a nullity and that his sentence for being a habitual criminal was void, as it is not a crime. He argued that he had already served the valid sentence for possession.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and found that the nunc pro tunc order was void because it improperly changed the original sentence beyond correcting a clerical error. The court held that the original sentence for being a habitual criminal was void, as habitual criminality is not a separate crime but an enhancement. Since Ballheim had served the valid sentence for possession, he was entitled to habeas relief.The court reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case with directions to issue the writ of habeas corpus and hold a hearing to determine if Ballheim should be discharged from custody. View "Ballheim v. Settles" on Justia Law

John G. Strawn entered a plea agreement to plead no contest to two counts of third-degree assault. The State agreed not to mention any sexual contact in the factual basis for the charges. However, the county court found that Strawn had subjected a victim to sexual contact based on information in the presentence investigation report (PSR) and ordered him to register as a sex offender under Nebraska’s Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA).Strawn appealed to the district court, arguing that the county court erred in requiring him to register as a sex offender because the factual basis provided by the State did not include any evidence of sexual contact. He also contended that the county court should have made a specific credibility finding and that he was denied procedural due process. Additionally, Strawn challenged the county court's advisement that his conviction might result in a federal firearms prohibition. The district court rejected Strawn's arguments and affirmed the county court's judgment.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and found no merit in Strawn's arguments. The court held that SORA does not require evidence of sexual contact to be present in both the factual basis and the PSR; it is sufficient if such evidence is found in the record, which includes both the factual basis and the PSR. The court also determined that the county court was not required to make an express credibility finding and that there was sufficient evidence in the PSR to support the finding of sexual contact. The court concluded that Strawn was afforded procedural due process, as he was given notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding SORA registration. Finally, the court noted that the county court's advisement about the potential federal firearms prohibition did not impose any prohibition itself. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "State v. Strawn" on Justia Law

Keloni Jones was involved in an altercation outside a bar in Omaha, Nebraska, where she shot and killed a security guard. She was initially charged with second-degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Under a plea agreement, the charges were amended to manslaughter and possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony, to which Jones pled no contest.The District Court for Douglas County initially sentenced Jones to 20 to 20 years for manslaughter and 20 years plus 1 day for possession of a deadly weapon, to be served consecutively. However, the court later realized the manslaughter sentence was invalid as it did not comply with statutory requirements. The court reconvened and modified the manslaughter sentence to 19 years 364 days to 20 years, while keeping the possession of a deadly weapon sentence unchanged.Jones appealed, arguing that the district court erred in modifying the sentence and that the sentences were excessive. The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that the district court had the authority to modify the invalid sentence before it was entered into the court's records. The court also found that the sentences were within statutory limits and not an abuse of discretion, considering the nature of the crime and the benefits Jones received from the plea agreement.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding the modified sentences. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

The case involves the defendant, who was convicted of first and third degree sexual assault of his stepdaughter. The assaults allegedly occurred between December 1, 2021, and February 24, 2022, in Grand Island, Hall County, Nebraska. The victim, a minor, reported the assaults to her boyfriend, who then informed school authorities, leading to the defendant's arrest. The victim testified that the assaults included both nonpenetrative and penetrative acts, with the latter occurring shortly before she disclosed the abuse.In the District Court for Hall County, the defendant filed a praecipe for a subpoena duces tecum to have a doctor testify about a medical report indicating the victim reported a sexual assault occurring approximately four months prior to March 25, 2022. The court quashed the subpoena and barred the evidence, citing a discovery violation and failure to follow proper procedures for obtaining privileged medical records. The court also denied the defendant's motion in limine to exclude evidence of prior sexual assaults outside the charged timeframe.The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the defendant failed to preserve the issue of the discovery sanction for appeal by not renewing the offer of proof at trial. The court also found no prejudice from the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, as the defendant did not specifically assign as error the failure to make an offer of proof at trial or to question the victim about her statement to the doctor.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court held that the defendant adequately preserved the issue of the discovery sanction through his offer of exhibit 2 and the evidence adduced at trial. However, the court found that any error in excluding the evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, as the defendant was able to confront the victim with similar inconsistent statements during cross-examination. The court also concluded that the defendant could not establish prejudice from the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, as the exclusion of the evidence did not materially influence the outcome of the case. View "State v. Aquino" on Justia Law

Boone River, LLC purchased a tax certificate and later obtained a tax deed for property owned by Nancy J. Miles, Cheryl L. Bettin, and Robert R. Moninger. Boone River transferred the property to 11T NE, LLC, which then sued to quiet title. The court voided the tax deed and quieted title in favor of Miles, Bettin, and Moninger. Boone River and 11T subsequently filed a complaint for unjust enrichment, seeking compensation for taxes paid and maintenance costs. Miles and Bettin counterclaimed, citing an offer of judgment under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-901, which Boone River and 11T did not accept.The district court initially ruled in favor of Boone River and 11T, awarding them $16,918.68. Miles and Bettin appealed, and the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the judgment against them, affirming it only against Moninger. Following the mandate, the district court entered judgment in favor of Miles and Bettin. Miles and Bettin then filed a motion for costs under § 25-901, which Boone River and 11T opposed.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that the district court erred in dismissing Miles and Bettin’s motion for costs. The Supreme Court clarified that the obligation under § 25-901 for the plaintiff to pay costs applies when the plaintiff fails to obtain a judgment for more than the offer, including when judgment is entered against the plaintiff. The court also held that an offer of judgment under § 25-901 retains its cost-shifting effect throughout the case, including on remand.The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the district court’s order and remanded the case with directions to determine the costs to which Miles and Bettin are entitled under § 25-901, explicitly stating that "cost" under § 25-901 does not include attorney fees. View "Boone River, LLC v. Miles" on Justia Law

Leaf Supreme Products, LLC sued James and Adella Bachman, who counterclaimed. A jury found in favor of Leaf Supreme on a conversion claim, awarding approximately $200,000 in damages. Believing all claims resolved, the Bachmans attempted to appeal, but the Nebraska Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, noting unresolved claims. Leaf Supreme then sought a debtor’s examination of the Bachmans, which the district court ordered on February 3, 2023, before entering a final judgment on February 6, 2023.The district court’s February 3 order was void as it was issued before a final judgment. The Bachmans did not comply with this order or subsequent orders, leading the district court to hold them in contempt on May 4, 2023, and again on September 7, 2023, imposing sanctions and ordering them to produce financial information and appear for questioning. The district court reiterated this on March 1, 2024, ordering their incarceration unless they complied.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that the February 3 order was void because it was issued before a final judgment, and refusal to obey a void order is not contempt. The subsequent orders were also void as they were based on the initial void order. The court found that the September 7 order did not clearly indicate it was a new, separate order in aid of execution, thus failing to provide clear warning to the Bachmans.The Nebraska Supreme Court vacated the district court’s contempt order and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the district court to issue a new, valid order for a debtor’s examination. View "Leaf Supreme Prods. v. Bachman" on Justia Law

A property owner applied for a conditional use permit to build a commercial hog facility on its land in rural Cherry County, Nebraska. The facility was intended to provide manure for fertilizing the owner's crops. Neighboring landowners objected to the issuance of the permit, arguing that the owner, not being the operator of the facility, could not establish compliance with zoning regulations regarding odor mitigation and water contamination.The Cherry County Board of Commissioners issued the permit, and the neighboring landowners appealed to the district court, seeking a trial de novo. The district court held a trial and determined that the owner's application complied with the relevant zoning regulations, affirming the issuance of the permit. The neighboring landowners then appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court, while the Board cross-appealed, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the neighboring landowners' appeal.The Nebraska Supreme Court found that the district court had jurisdiction over the appeal, as the relevant statutes did not limit the right to appeal to applicants only. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in finding that the property owner demonstrated compliance with the zoning regulations. The court held that the property owner, not the operator, was responsible for showing compliance with the regulations and that the odor and water contamination mitigation plans submitted by the owner were sufficient. The court affirmed the district court's decision to uphold the issuance of the conditional use permit. View "Amorak v. Cherry Cty. Bd. of Comrs." on Justia Law

A business owner and his company, which provides non-emergency medical transportation, challenged the constitutionality of a Nebraska statute requiring a showing of "public convenience and necessity" to obtain a certificate to operate such services. They argued that the statute violated the Nebraska Constitution's due process, special legislation, and special privileges and immunities clauses. They claimed the requirement protected existing providers from competition and harmed the public by reducing service quality.The district court for Lancaster County rejected their constitutional challenges and dismissed their complaint. The court applied a rational basis test to the due process claim, finding the statute rationally related to a legitimate state interest in preventing destructive competition and ensuring reliable transportation services. The court also found the statute did not create an arbitrary or unreasonable classification or a closed class, thus rejecting the special legislation claim. Finally, the court determined the statute did not grant irrevocable special privileges or immunities, dismissing the special privileges and immunities claim.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's rejection of the facial constitutional challenges, agreeing that the statute was rationally related to a legitimate state interest and did not violate the special legislation or special privileges and immunities clauses. However, the Supreme Court vacated the district court's order to the extent it ruled on as-applied challenges, determining that such challenges should be raised in an application for certification and an appeal from any denial by the Public Service Commission. View "N'Da v. Golden" on Justia Law