Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A married couple with two children separated after the wife filed for dissolution of marriage. They agreed to share joint physical custody of their children on a rotating schedule and resolved property division, but disagreed on legal custody, the children’s involvement with the father’s church, and attendance at a church-affiliated summer camp during the father’s parenting time. The mother had been primarily responsible for the children’s health care and educational needs. She objected to the children’s continued involvement with the father’s church and church camp, citing concerns about religious teachings and values, though she had not objected to their attendance at non-church camps.The District Court for Buffalo County held a trial on these contested issues. It awarded sole legal custody to the mother, finding her to be primarily responsible for the children’s health and educational decisions. The court determined that, because of significant disagreements between the parents, sole legal custody was appropriate and in the children’s best interests. The court found no evidence that the father’s religious practices posed any threat to the children’s well-being and allowed him to involve the children in church activities during his parenting time. However, it concluded that the church camp was an extracurricular activity, granting the mother, as sole legal custodian, the authority to decide on the children’s attendance, including during the father’s parenting time.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the record de novo. It affirmed the award of sole legal custody to the mother, finding no abuse of discretion. However, it modified the lower court’s decree to remove the provision that allowed the mother to prevent the father from enrolling the children in the church camp during his parenting time, holding there was no evidence of harm from attending the camp. The judgment was affirmed as modified. View "Munsell v. Munsell" on Justia Law

A decedent passed away leaving a will that provided, among other things, a bequest to one son, Chris, of $50,000, equipment of his choosing, and “any business or interest in any business I own at my death.” The will’s residuary clause distributed the rest of the estate, including real and personal property, to another son, Kyle, and three others. The central disagreement arose over whether certain real estate, specifically a commercial property used by a construction business, was included in the bequest of “any business or interest in any business.” Chris argued that the property constituted a business asset or business interest, while Kyle, serving as personal representative, contended it was personal property not covered by the business bequest.The County Court for Douglas County admitted extrinsic evidence, including affidavits from both sons and the decedent’s accountant, but ultimately concluded that there was no ambiguity in the will’s language. The court ruled that it could not consider extrinsic evidence, found that Chris had already received all business assets to which he was entitled, and denied Chris’s request for other estate assets and supervised administration.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the county court’s order for error on the record and considered the interpretation of the will de novo. The Nebraska Supreme Court held that, although there was no patent ambiguity on the face of the will, the extrinsic evidence revealed a latent ambiguity regarding whether the decedent intended the commercial real estate to be included in the business bequest. Because the county court did not consider the possibility of a latent ambiguity and refused to assess the extrinsic evidence for that purpose, its decision was contrary to law. The Supreme Court reversed the county court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "In re Estate of Schneider" on Justia Law

A property owner initiated a forcible entry and detainer action in county court against tenants who allegedly failed to pay rent on a commercial lease. The lease included options for the tenants to purchase the property during future terms, granted credits for rent paid toward the purchase price, and restricted the owner's ability to sell the property without giving the tenants an opportunity to exercise their purchase option. The owner sought possession, past due rent, and other costs. The tenants argued that the lease provisions created an equitable interest, thereby raising a title dispute that deprived the county court of jurisdiction.The county court rejected the tenants’ argument, finding that it had jurisdiction and ordering restitution of the premises to the owner. On appeal, the tenants failed to include the county court’s judgment in the transcript, which led the District Court for Douglas County to affirm the county court’s order without addressing the jurisdictional issue. The tenants then moved to alter or amend the judgment and supplement the record with the omitted judgment, but the district court denied this motion.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. It determined that when a lease includes provisions that arguably create an equitable interest and restrict the owner’s rights, a title dispute is present. In such circumstances, a county court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to decide a forcible entry and detainer action. The Supreme Court also held that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to allow supplementation of the record when it was necessary to determine jurisdiction. The Nebraska Supreme Court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded with directions to vacate the county court’s judgment and dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Martens v. BB's Childcare" on Justia Law

A mother, Leah, relinquished her parental rights to her young son, Jordon, after Jordon had been removed from her home over concerns about her and the father’s ability to care for him. Leah had previously relinquished rights to two older children, who were adopted by her father and stepmother, and Jordon was ultimately placed with a relative of his father. In November 2022, Leah executed a written relinquishment of her rights, witnessed by her attorney and social workers. Afterwards, Jordon was adopted by the relative. Months later, Leah sought to rescind her relinquishment, alleging she did not act voluntarily due to her intellectual disability and claimed she was subjected to threats, coercion, and promises by her ex-husband, his family, and the adoptive parent.Her initial attempt to invalidate the relinquishment in the County Court for Dodge County was denied without an evidentiary hearing. The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a hearing. On remand, the juvenile court received testimony from Leah, her ex-husband, his relatives, social workers, and her attorney. The court found Leah’s relinquishment was not the result of fraud, duress, threats, or coercion. The court gave weight to evidence that Leah initiated and insisted on relinquishment, understood its consequences, and was not unduly pressured by others. Leah’s intellectual disability was considered, but the court found she comprehended the act’s meaning and effect.On de novo review, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the juvenile court's order, holding that Leah did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that her relinquishment was invalid. The Court clarified that a properly executed, voluntary relinquishment is irrevocable absent proof of threats, coercion, fraud, or duress, and that subsequent changes of heart or noncompliance with informal contact agreements do not invalidate such relinquishments. View "In re Interest of Jordon B." on Justia Law

A man was charged with burglary after allegedly breaking into the home of a woman with whom he had a prior romantic relationship. The State’s amended information accused him of willfully, maliciously, and forcibly entering her residence with the intent to commit stalking or, alternatively, with intent to steal property. The incident occurred after the man had engaged in a pattern of harassment, including posting the woman’s personal information online and breaking into her house multiple times.The District Court for Douglas County heard the case after the defendant filed a motion to quash the information, arguing that stalking could not be the underlying felony for burglary. He asserted that stalking is generally a misdemeanor that becomes a felony only via enhancement and that stalking’s required “course of conduct” cannot be established in a single burglary incident. The court treated his arguments as constitutional challenges to the burglary statute and found no merit in either an as-applied or facial challenge, overruling the motion to quash. The defendant then pled guilty as part of a plea agreement, and the court found a factual basis for the plea and sentenced him to imprisonment.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed whether the information was sufficient to charge burglary, specifically if stalking could serve as the felony intent element. The court held that the information was sufficient, as stalking can constitute a felony under certain circumstances and the information adequately notified the defendant of the charges. The court rejected the argument that stalking could not qualify as the underlying felony and found no error in the district court’s decision to overrule the motion to quash or in convicting and sentencing the defendant. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "State v. Dicken" on Justia Law

A group of juveniles, including the defendant, participated in a series of criminal acts over several days in June 2021. The incidents began with the theft of a vehicle from Emmanuel Jacinto Franco outside a public pool, during which one juvenile brandished a handgun and forcibly took the vehicle. The defendant, present during the planning and execution of the theft, later joined the others in fleeing with the stolen car. Over the following days, the group committed additional crimes, including multiple shootings targeting individuals they believed were affiliated with a rival gang. One person was killed, others were injured, and the group later stole another vehicle. Law enforcement eventually apprehended the defendant and his associates, aided by tracking technology.The District Court for Douglas County conducted a joint jury trial for the defendant and a co-defendant. The defendant faced several felony charges, including first-degree murder, robbery, assault, and multiple counts involving the use of a firearm. The State presented extensive evidence, including witness testimony and forensic analysis. The defendant did not testify. The jury found the defendant guilty on all counts. The court denied the defendant’s proposed jury instruction on “mere presence” and sentenced him to consecutive prison terms totaling 320 years to life. Each sentence fell within the statutory limits. The defendant appealed, arguing insufficiency of the evidence for certain convictions, error in jury instructions, and that his sentences were excessive and amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that sufficient evidence supported the defendant’s convictions for robbery and use of a firearm under an aiding and abetting theory. The court found no error in the district court’s refusal to give the defendant’s proposed jury instruction, as the instructions provided were adequate and not misleading. The court also held that the sentences imposed were not excessive nor did they constitute cruel and unusual punishment, even though they amounted to a de facto life sentence. The judgment and sentences of the district court were affirmed. View "State v. Flores" on Justia Law

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