Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A taxpayer entered into an agreement with the Nebraska Tax Commissioner for a data center project under the Nebraska Advantage Act, which required a minimum investment in exchange for tax incentives. The taxpayer later sought to transfer the project and its associated incentives to another company. The Department of Revenue denied the transfer request, stating the project had not been transferred in its entirety as required by statute. The Department notified the taxpayer of its intent to deny the transfer, gave it an opportunity to respond, and later issued a final denial. After this denial, the Department determined the taxpayer had failed to maintain required investment levels, issued a notice of deficiency determination by first-class mail, and sought to recapture tax incentives. The taxpayer protested both the denial of the transfer and the deficiency notice, but its protest was filed after the statutory deadline.In the District Court for Lancaster County, the court dismissed the taxpayer’s petition regarding the transfer dispute, finding it was untimely and that the court lacked jurisdiction. In the deficiency dispute, the district court found the Department could provide notice of the deficiency by first-class mail without requesting a return receipt, but remanded for a hearing to resolve whether the taxpayer’s protest was timely.The Supreme Court of Nebraska addressed both appeals. It held that the Department’s denial of the transfer was a “proposed determination” under the Nebraska Advantage Act, which the taxpayer had sixty days to protest; because no timely protest was filed, the determination became final and the district court lacked jurisdiction. The court further held that statutes did not require a return receipt for notices sent by first-class mail. Because there was no factual dispute about the date of mailing, the district court erred by remanding for a hearing on timeliness. The dismissal in the transfer dispute was affirmed, and the judgment in the deficiency dispute was affirmed as modified to eliminate the remand. View "MLB Advanced Media v. Nebraska Dept. of Rev." on Justia Law

A man was charged with first degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person after fatally shooting a man in Omaha, Nebraska. In a plea agreement, the murder charge was reduced to second degree murder, and he pleaded guilty to all charges. During the plea colloquy, he denied any history of mental illness or suffering from a mental or emotional disorder and stated he understood the consequences of his plea. At sentencing, his attorney referenced a family history of mental illness and some reports of mental health concerns, but no formal claim of incompetency was raised.The District Court for Douglas County accepted his guilty pleas and imposed consecutive sentences totaling 95 years to life. On direct appeal, his sentences were affirmed; he did not claim incompetency but argued his mental health should have been a mitigating factor. He then filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief, asserting, among other things, that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue a competency defense. The district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, finding the record did not suggest incompetency and that his allegations were insufficient to show prejudice or a reasonable probability that he was incompetent at the time of the plea.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s denial of postconviction relief. The court held that generalized allegations about mental health, without specific facts linking those issues to incompetency, were insufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing or postconviction relief. It also held that failure to appoint counsel for postconviction proceedings was not an abuse of discretion where the motion presented no justiciable issues of law or fact. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision. View "State v. Kellogg" on Justia Law

The case involved Christopher J., the natural father of three children, whose parental rights were challenged following their removal from his care in January 2021. This removal came after allegations by the children of physical abuse, exposure to domestic violence, and substance abuse. Prior to this, in 2016, a juvenile court case involving the family had resulted in the children being returned to Christopher’s care for five months before the subsequent removal. The children's mother had previously had her parental rights terminated and was not involved in this appeal.After the 2021 removal, the Separate Juvenile Court of Douglas County adjudicated the children under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a). Christopher appealed the adjudication, but the Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s decision in March 2022. Following adjudication, Christopher’s visitation with the children was initially permitted but later suspended pending a psychological evaluation. Despite attempts, visitation never resumed, due in part to Christopher’s lack of engagement with services and the therapists’ recommendations. In September 2023, the State filed to terminate Christopher’s parental rights, presenting evidence of neglect, failure of reunification efforts, prolonged out-of-home placement, aggravated circumstances, and the children’s best interests.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo. It found clear and convincing evidence that the statutory basis for termination was satisfied, specifically that the children had been in out-of-home placement for 15 or more months of the most recent 22 months. The Court held that termination of Christopher’s parental rights was in the best interests of the children, citing his refusal to acknowledge past abuse and inability to rehabilitate. The Court rejected Christopher’s argument of improper delegation regarding visitation decisions, concluding no such delegation occurred. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. View "In re Interest of Bosileo D." on Justia Law

An employee who had been diagnosed with metastatic urothelial carcinoma continued to work as a truck driver and farm laborer. Several months after his cancer diagnosis, he suffered a work-related fall that resulted in a hip injury and required surgery. Complications from the surgery, including an infection, delayed his ability to receive recommended immunotherapy for his cancer. The employee died approximately three months after the fall. His death certificate listed metastatic cancer as the immediate cause of death, but also noted that complications from the hip injury delayed treatment, resulting in progression of the cancer. The employee’s widow sought workers’ compensation death benefits, arguing that the work injury prevented timely cancer treatment and thereby shortened his life.The Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court considered expert testimony from several physicians. The medical experts agreed that the work injury and its complications delayed cancer treatment, but their opinions as to whether this definitively shortened the employee’s life were couched in terms such as “may” or “might.” The compensation court concluded that the evidence was insufficiently definite to establish that the delayed treatment caused or hastened death by a preponderance of the evidence, as required under Nebraska law, and denied the claim for death benefits. However, the court did award compensation for temporary total disability during the period the employee was unable to work due to the hip injury, as well as associated medical expenses and attorney fees.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence and the legal standard applied. It held that the compensation court did not err in denying death benefits, finding that the expert testimony lacked the necessary definiteness to establish causation. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of death benefits, holding that the claimant failed to prove the work injury proximately caused the employee’s death. View "Hastreiter v. Foltz Bros." on Justia Law

A 17-year-old, Mechi J., was adjudicated as a juvenile under Nebraska law in two separate cases and was placed on probation. At an October 2024 hearing, Mechi requested that a termination date be set for his probation. The juvenile court stated that if Mechi did not comply with the terms of probation, its remedies would likely be limited to not sealing his records, which Mechi acknowledged as an incentive to comply. Shortly after, the court ordered that Mechi remain on probation for six months, that his record would be sealed upon successful completion of probation if there were no objections, and that probation would automatically terminate on April 28, 2025, unless a hearing was requested before then. Mechi was also ordered to pay $71 in court costs.The record showed no payment of court costs or further filings before April 29, 2025, when the juvenile court issued orders terminating its jurisdiction and Mechi’s probation, and directed that his records not be sealed due to nonpayment of court costs. The court did not characterize the termination as “unsuccessful,” nor specify the evidence relied upon. Mechi appealed, asserting that the court failed to comply with statutory procedures and deprived him of due process.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the juvenile court did not revoke probation or change the disposition but rather acted in accordance with its prior orders. The Supreme Court found that the statutory procedures for revoking probation did not apply because there was no motion to revoke or change disposition. It further held that due process was satisfied by the notice and opportunity for a hearing Mechi received before the October 2024 orders, and that Mechi failed to use available postdeprivation remedies to contest the non-sealing of his records. The Supreme Court affirmed the juvenile court’s orders. View "In re Interest of Mechi J." on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with two counts of first degree sexual assault after allegations from two accusers, both of whom frequented and worked at the defendant’s bar. Evidence indicated that the defendant had been drinking prior to the alleged assaults, and the accusers testified to nonconsensual sexual encounters. During pretrial proceedings, the defendant alleged that the county attorney prosecuting the case had a conflict of interest because of a prior sexual encounter between the defendant and the attorney’s then-wife, raising concerns about prosecutorial misconduct and requesting dismissal or disqualification.The District Court for Nemaha County addressed these concerns, finding that while the county attorney was not disqualified as a matter of law, to avoid any appearance of impropriety, a special prosecutor should be appointed. The county attorney’s subsequent motion for disqualification was sustained, and the Attorney General’s office took over prosecution. At trial, a jury heard evidence supporting both charges and ultimately found the defendant guilty. The district court accepted the verdicts and sentenced the defendant to concurrent prison terms.On appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court, the defendant argued that the charges should have been dismissed due to the county attorney’s alleged conflict and challenged a jury instruction regarding intoxication. He also raised several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Nebraska Supreme Court held that denial of the motion to dismiss was not an abuse of discretion, particularly because a special prosecutor handled the trial and conviction. The intoxication instruction was found to correctly state the law and not to mislead the jury. The court rejected all ineffective assistance of counsel claims, finding no prejudice. Accordingly, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences. View "State v. Reeves" on Justia Law

This case involves two individuals who guaranteed loans for their business by executing promissory notes and trust deeds, which conveyed several real properties as security to a bank. After the business defaulted on the loans and entered bankruptcy, the bank sold both the business and the individuals’ properties through judicial foreclosure and trustee sales. The bank subsequently sought a deficiency judgment against the guarantors for the remaining debt, asserting that they owed over $3 million, while the guarantors argued that they should receive credit for the fair market value of the properties sold, in accordance with Nebraska’s antideficiency statute.The District Court for Johnson County granted summary judgment to the bank, finding the guarantors liable under their guarantees without credit for the property values. The court relied on a waiver provision in the guarantees, which stated that the guarantors waived any defense based on the bank not obtaining the fair market value of the collateral. The court also denied the guarantors’ motion for reconsideration or new trial, prompting the guarantors to appeal.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo. It held that the antideficiency statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 76-1013, applies not only to borrowers but also to guarantors when their obligation is secured by a trust deed and a trustee sale occurs. The court determined that the waiver provision in the guarantees was unenforceable as a matter of public policy, given the legislative mandate of § 76-1013. Furthermore, the court found that evidence such as assessed values and appraisals raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding the fair market value of the properties at the time of the trustee sales. The court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "American Exch. Bank v. Topp" on Justia Law

The case involved a defendant charged with several crimes, including first degree murder, for which the State sought the death penalty. The State’s charging documents included notice of three aggravating circumstances relevant to the potential imposition of the death penalty. After being served with the information, the defendant filed multiple pretrial motions, including motions to quash the information and amended informations on grounds related to alleged defects in the aggravating circumstances and constitutional challenges to Nebraska’s death penalty statutes. Each motion was accompanied by a request for a pretrial hearing. The procedural timeline included multiple amended informations, motions for a bill of particulars, motions for discovery, and a motion to suppress, with corresponding hearings and arraignment dates postponed at the defendant’s request or with his consent.The District Court for Washington County found several periods of delay excludable from the six-month speedy trial calculation under Nebraska’s speedy trial statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1207. The court excluded time for the defendant’s motions and continuances, ultimately determining that the defendant’s motion for absolute discharge on speedy trial grounds was premature because the statutory period had not expired.The Nebraska Supreme Court independently reviewed the undisputed facts and the application of the speedy trial statute. It held that all three defense motions to quash—challenging the aggravating circumstances—were pretrial motions resulting in periods of delay excludable under § 29-1207(4)(a), and that its previous decision in State v. Covey did not apply to the facts here. Additionally, the Court found that delays stemming from the defendant’s requests to postpone arraignments for the purpose of filing and litigating these motions were continuances excludable under § 29-1207(4)(b). The Court affirmed the district court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for discharge. View "State v. Collins" on Justia Law

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