Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this case, the appellant, Roberto E., sought to modify his child support obligations following changes in the custody of his children. Roberto and Lizeth E. were married in 2011 and had one child together, with Roberto adopting Lizeth’s four other children. Their marriage was dissolved in 2017, with Lizeth receiving custody of all five children and Roberto ordered to pay child support. Subsequently, the children were placed in various out-of-home placements due to juvenile court proceedings, with one child, Roberto Jr., eventually placed in Roberto’s custody through a bridge order.The Lincoln County District Court initially modified Roberto’s child support obligations to reflect the custody change of Roberto Jr. but did not account for the other children’s placements in foster care. Roberto filed a complaint to further modify his child support obligations, arguing that the juvenile court’s orders constituted a material change in circumstances and that his child support should be adjusted retroactively.The district court found that it lacked jurisdiction to modify custody for the children still under juvenile court jurisdiction and declined to modify child support retroactively, citing the rule against modifying accrued child support unless equitable estoppel applied. The court also upheld the garnishment of Roberto’s bank account for back child support.Upon review, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision regarding custody but vacated and remanded the decision on child support. The Supreme Court found that the district court should have considered a deviation from the child support guidelines due to the children’s placements in foster care, which would be equitable under the circumstances. The court also vacated the garnishment findings, as they were dependent on the proper determination of Roberto’s child support obligations. View "Lizeth E. v. Roberto E." on Justia Law

Brent McCormick died intestate, and his sister-in-law, Tracy McCormick, filed a petition for formal probate, listing Brent’s father, mother, and brother as the only known heirs. Beth Roberts, Brent’s biological daughter, filed a demand for notice and objected to Tracy’s petition, asserting her status as Brent’s sole heir. The county court for Washington County held a hearing and appointed Tracy as temporary personal representative, later determining that Beth was entitled to inherit from Brent despite the termination of Brent’s parental rights.The county court noted that Brent’s paternity was established by adjudication in 1991, and his parental rights were terminated in 1992. Beth was not adopted after the termination. The court analyzed relevant statutes, including Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2309, which establishes the relationship of parent and child for intestate succession, and § 30-2312.02, which bars a parent from inheriting from a child if parental rights are terminated but does not address the child’s right to inherit from the parent. The court also considered Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-106.01, which states that relinquishment of parental rights does not impair a child’s right to inherit.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the county court’s decision. The court held that under the Nebraska Probate Code, Beth was Brent’s issue and entitled to inherit from him. The court found no statutory provision indicating that the termination of Brent’s parental rights extinguished Beth’s right to inherit. The court concluded that the probate statutes and other relevant statutes did not bar Beth from inheriting from Brent, affirming the county court’s order. View "In re Estate of McCormick" on Justia Law

The appellant was charged with four counts of first-degree sexual assault, alleged to have occurred between January 1, 2004, and June 1, 2008. He filed a motion to quash and dismiss the charges, arguing that the statute of limitations had expired. The district court denied the motion, stating that the statute of limitations likely had not run but required a preliminary hearing to determine the ages of the victims. Before the preliminary hearing, the State amended the charges to include offenses from January 1, 2000, to June 1, 2008. The appellant eventually pled no contest to one count of first-degree sexual assault under a plea agreement.The district court accepted the plea after confirming that the appellant understood the charges, the penalties, and his rights. The court also confirmed that the appellant was competent to plead, despite his PTSD and not taking medication on the day of the plea hearing. The appellant was sentenced to 40 to 50 years in prison, with credit for time served. His trial counsel did not appeal, leading the appellant to file a pro se motion for postconviction relief, which was granted, allowing him to file a direct appeal.On appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court, the appellant argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for various reasons, including failing to file a motion to quash the amended information, not disclosing a health condition that impaired counsel’s ability, and not properly advising him of the consequences of his plea. The court found that the record did not support claims of ineffective assistance regarding the motion to quash, as the statute of limitations had not expired, and there was no ex post facto violation. The court also found that the appellant was adequately informed of the consequences of his plea and that his counsel was not deficient in this regard.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s acceptance of the plea and the sentence, finding no abuse of discretion or merit in the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. View "State v. Haas" on Justia Law

James R. Kalita was convicted in county court of second-degree criminal trespass and refusal to obey a lawful order after he brought a flagpole into the Nebraska State Capitol Building, which was against the building's regulations. Despite being informed by Capitol security and Nebraska State Patrol officers that poles were not permitted, Kalita refused to remove the flagpole or leave the premises, leading to his arrest.Kalita appealed to the District Court for Lancaster County, arguing that the statutes and regulations under which he was convicted were unconstitutional as applied to him and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. The district court affirmed the county court's judgment, finding the evidence sufficient and rejecting the constitutional challenge.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that Kalita forfeited his constitutional challenge by failing to raise it in the county court. The court emphasized that constitutional issues must be specifically raised at the trial court level to be considered on appeal. The court also found that the evidence was sufficient to support Kalita's convictions, as he had clearly refused to obey a lawful order from the Nebraska State Patrol and remained in the Capitol building despite being informed that he was trespassing.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding Kalita's convictions for second-degree criminal trespass and refusal to obey a lawful order. View "State v. Kalita" on Justia Law

The case involves Meisam Sedighi, who sought reimbursement from his employer, Schnackel Engineers, Inc., for $3,000 he paid to an immigration attorney for the preparation and filing of a permanent labor certification application. Sedighi argued that under 20 C.F.R. § 656.12(b), Schnackel Engineers was responsible for these costs. Schnackel Engineers contended that Sedighi was to pursue his green card at his own expense, as stipulated in his employment contract, and that it did not agree to pay for the certification application.The small claims court of the county court for Douglas County ruled in favor of Sedighi, finding that Schnackel Engineers was responsible for the attorney fees under 20 C.F.R. § 656.12(b). Schnackel Engineers appealed to the district court for Douglas County, which reversed the small claims court's decision. The district court found that the employment contract controlled the parties' obligations and that Sedighi was responsible for his own green card expenses. It concluded that the Michigan immigration attorney represented Sedighi, not Schnackel Engineers.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in its appellate review. The Supreme Court noted that the small claims court's judgment was supported by competent evidence showing that Schnackel Engineers actively participated in the preparation and filing of the permanent labor certification application. The Supreme Court held that the district court should have presumed that the small claims court found the Michigan immigration attorney represented both Sedighi and Schnackel Engineers. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the district court's judgment and directed it to reinstate the small claims court's judgment in favor of Sedighi. View "Sedighi v. Schnackel Engineers" on Justia Law

In the summer of 2024, the Nebraska Secretary of State announced he would not implement recent statutory amendments allowing individuals convicted of felonies to vote upon completing their sentences, deeming the amendments unconstitutional. In response, individuals who had completed their sentences filed for a writ of mandamus to compel the Secretary and county election commissioners to implement the amendments and allow them to register to vote.The case was brought directly to the Nebraska Supreme Court. The relators argued that the amendments provided a clear right to vote and imposed a clear duty on the respondents to allow voter registration. The Secretary, supported by an Attorney General's opinion, argued that the amendments were unconstitutional, asserting that the power to restore voting rights lies with the Board of Pardons, not the Legislature.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case, noting that fewer than five judges found the amendments unconstitutional, as required by the Nebraska Constitution to invalidate a legislative act. Consequently, the court determined that the relators had established the prerequisites for mandamus relief. The court issued a peremptory writ directing the Secretary and election commissioners to use voter registration forms required by the amendments and to register the individual relators upon receipt of complete applications. The court also ordered the Secretary to remove any disqualification on registration not contained within the amendments and to comply fully with the new statutory provisions. View "State ex rel. Spung v. Evnen" on Justia Law

The case involves Riley Lenhart, who was convicted of intentional child abuse resulting in the death of his 10-month-old daughter, M.L. On June 19, 2022, M.L. died from ligature strangulation while in Lenhart's care. Lenhart claimed he left M.L. briefly to shower, and upon returning, found her not breathing. Emergency personnel were unable to revive her. Lenhart was arrested and charged with intentional child abuse resulting in death.The District Court for Dawes County handled the trial. Before the trial, Lenhart successfully moved to exclude certain character evidence, including his status as a sex offender and the fact that a sexual assault examination was conducted on M.L. During the trial, a forensic pathologist mentioned the sexual assault examination, prompting Lenhart to object and move for a mistrial. The court struck the statement and instructed the jury to disregard it but denied the mistrial motion. Instead, the court ordered the State to stipulate that such examinations are routine and that no evidence of sexual assault was found. Lenhart objected to this stipulation.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the mistrial motion, as the jury was instructed to disregard the improper statement, and it is presumed they followed this instruction. The court also found that any error in the stipulation was harmless, given the overwhelming evidence against Lenhart, including the cause of M.L.'s death, Lenhart's sole care of M.L. at the time, and his failure to call 911. The court affirmed Lenhart's conviction and sentence. View "State v. Lenhart" on Justia Law

Dylan R. Isham and Billy C. Jack entered into an agreement to exchange Isham’s manufactured home for Jack’s travel trailer, with an option for Jack to purchase a garage attached to the manufactured home for $3,000 by May 11, 2020. Jack declined the option via a message on June 3, 2019, which Isham read but did not respond to. In February 2021, Isham contacted Jack to either receive payment for the garage or remove it, leading to a dispute as Jack had integrated the garage into his home.The District Court for Butler County found in favor of Jack, concluding that Isham had abandoned his rights to the garage by failing to act on them for over 20 months. The court noted that Isham’s lack of communication and actions indicated abandonment, and it would be inequitable to enforce Isham’s right to remove the garage after such a delay. The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, agreeing that Isham had waived his right under the contract and that the district court’s finding of abandonment was not clearly erroneous.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court held that Jack did not meet the burden of proving abandonment, as mere nonuse and the passage of time are insufficient to establish abandonment without clear and convincing evidence of intent. The court found that Isham’s actions, such as exploring options to move the garage, did not demonstrate an intent to abandon. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals with directions to reverse the district court’s decision and remand for further proceedings to determine the value of the garage, given its integration into Jack’s home. View "Isham v. Jack" on Justia Law

A housekeeper employed by a nursing and rehabilitation facility experienced a respiratory incident after wearing a sterilized N95 mask at work. She felt a burning sensation and had difficulty breathing, leading to hospitalization. She subsequently sought medical treatment for persistent respiratory issues and was diagnosed with moderate persistent asthma. She filed a petition in the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court, claiming her injury was work-related and seeking various benefits.The Workers’ Compensation Court held a trial where the housekeeper and her former supervisor testified. Medical evidence from her treating physicians was presented, including a report from her family care physician, who opined that her respiratory issues were associated with the mask incident. The pulmonologist, who treated her later, agreed that her symptoms began on the day of the incident but did not opine on causation. The employer denied the work-related nature of the injury and suggested a preexisting condition but did not provide contrary expert testimony.The Workers’ Compensation Court found that the housekeeper’s respiratory issues were caused by the work incident and awarded her temporary total and permanent partial disability benefits, past medical expenses, and future medical care. The court found the medical expert’s opinion credible and supported by the evidence, including the absence of preexisting respiratory issues and the timing of symptoms.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision. It held that the Workers’ Compensation Court did not err in finding the medical expert’s opinion had sufficient foundation and was persuasive. The court also found no clear error in the determination of a 30-percent loss of earning capacity, as the compensation court had considered the relevant factors and evidence. View "Prinz v. Omaha Operations" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with obstructing the administration of law in violation of a municipal ordinance. The incident occurred when law enforcement officers attempted to arrest the defendant's son, who had a felony warrant. The defendant, holding a large dog, approached the officers, yelled at them, and did not comply with their commands to step back. This behavior continued until the officers threatened to shoot the dog. The defendant also picked up his son's backpack despite orders to leave it, further interfering with the officers' duties.The County Court for Douglas County found the defendant guilty, concluding that his actions constituted willful and defiant refusals to comply with lawful commands, thereby obstructing the officers. The court relied on the language of the ordinance and referenced a similar case, State v. Ferrin, to support its findings. The defendant was fined $250 and ordered to pay court costs.On appeal, the District Court for Douglas County affirmed the conviction. The defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove intent, that the trial court improperly applied a different statute, and that his conviction violated due process and his First Amendment rights. The district court found that the evidence supported the conviction and that the trial court had not erred in its application of the law.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, as the defendant's actions interfered with the officers' duties and demonstrated intent to obstruct. The court also found no merit in the defendant's arguments regarding the application of a different statute and constitutional violations, noting that these issues were not properly raised in the lower courts. View "State v. Yah" on Justia Law