Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2024, a Nebraska resident challenged the legal sufficiency of two initiative petitions submitted for the November general election. One petition sought to legalize medical cannabis; the other proposed regulatory measures. The challenge alleged that numerous signatures were invalid due to circulator fraud and improper notarization, contending that after excluding these signatures, the petitions lacked the minimum number required by the Nebraska Constitution. The Secretary of State, having initially certified the petitions, also filed a cross-claim seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the sufficiency of the signatures and the validity of the measures.The District Court for Lancaster County reviewed the claims. It found that while some signatures should lose their presumption of validity due to proven circulator fraud or improper notarization, the challengers had not shown that enough signatures were invalid to render the petitions legally insufficient. The court rejected the argument that improper notarization by a notary on some pages should invalidate all pages notarized by that individual, distinguishing circulator fraud from notarial errors. It also declined to draw adverse inferences from witnesses who had invoked the Fifth Amendment, citing Nebraska statutory law and the circumstances of ongoing criminal investigations.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order. The Court held that Barkley v. Pool, a precedent concerning circulator fraud, does not require blanket invalidation of signatures based on notary impropriety. It further held that the trial court did not err in declining to draw adverse inferences from Fifth Amendment invocations. Ultimately, the Court found no legal or factual error in the district court’s determinations regarding the validity of the petitions, the sufficiency of signatures, or the denial of a motion to amend pleadings. The district court’s order was affirmed. View "Kuehn v. Evnen" on Justia Law

A woman brought her nearly two-year-old son to a hospital in Lincoln, Nebraska, where he was found with multiple injuries, including bruises, swelling, and a fractured leg. Subsequent medical examinations revealed further injuries, such as broken ribs, a lung contusion, brain swelling, and ultimately, the child died from his injuries. The mother, who had left the child in the care of her boyfriend and others, admitted to noticing symptoms and injuries over a period of weeks but did not seek medical care, citing reasons such as believing the injury was minor and fear of involvement with Child Protective Services. Evidence at trial included interviews, witness testimony, text messages, and internet searches indicating the mother was aware of the child’s worsening condition.The District Court for Lancaster County reviewed the case and presided over a jury trial. The jury found the mother guilty of intentional child abuse resulting in death, intentional child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury, and possession with intent to deliver or delivery of a controlled substance near a school. The court denied pretrial motions to exclude certain photographic evidence and sentenced her to consecutive prison terms totaling 70 years to life for the most serious charges, and additional years for the drug offense.The Nebraska Supreme Court examined claims of insufficient evidence, improper admission of photographs, ineffective assistance of counsel, and excessive sentencing. Applying the appropriate standards of review, the court held that there was sufficient evidence for the convictions, the photographs were relevant and not unduly prejudicial, and the sentences were within statutory limits and not an abuse of discretion. Claims of ineffective assistance were rejected as either unsupported or not prejudicial. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "State v. Cook" on Justia Law

A couple owned a parcel of land in a Nebraska subdivision and believed they also owned a strip of adjacent land, which later surveys showed was actually part of the neighboring lot owned by another couple. The couple claiming adverse possession had purchased their lot in 1990 and, over the years, maintained the disputed strip by mowing, weeding, and trimming, and in 2003, made substantial improvements such as installing a flower garden, a retaining wall, a fence, and a decorative arch. In 2009 or 2010, they began renting the neighboring lot and continued to do so after the lot was sold to new owners in 2018. A dispute arose when surveys in 2021 clarified the true boundary, leading to conflicting claims of ownership over the disputed strip.The District Court for Seward County found that while the claimants began making improvements in 2003, their use of the disputed property became permissive, rather than adverse, when they began renting the neighboring lot in 2010. Because Nebraska law requires that adverse possession be actual, continuous, exclusive, notorious, and adverse for a statutory period of 10 years, the court found the claimants failed to meet this requirement. The court dismissed the quiet title action and granted the counterclaim to quiet title in favor of the current lot owners.The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed, agreeing that the claimants’ acts before 2003 were only routine maintenance and not sufficiently notorious, and that their subsequent rental relationship rendered their possession permissive. On further review, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court held that the claimants did not establish all the elements of adverse possession for the required 10-year period, as their possession was not notorious before 2003 and became permissive by 2010. Thus, the claimants were not entitled to quiet title to the disputed property. View "Kortmeyer v. Hendrix" on Justia Law

Two groups sought to establish new political parties in Nebraska: one named the “Nebraska Working People Party” and another named the “America First Party.” Both sponsors submitted the required affidavits and sample petitions to the Secretary of State, circulated petitions, and filed the necessary signatures by the statutory deadlines for inclusion on the 2026 general election ballot. The Secretary of State did not initially raise any objections to the party names and announced both groups met the signature threshold, pending submission of party constitutions and bylaws.After these filings, the Nebraska Republican Party and the Nebraska Democratic Party (along with the Working Families Party) submitted written objections to the Secretary of State, contesting the use of the respective party names. The Republican Party’s objection was timely, but the Democratic Parties’ objection was filed after the statutory 7-day deadline. Both groups argued that the proposed names would confuse voters or overlap with existing party names or messaging. The Secretary of State rejected both objections, stating neither name violated the relevant statutes, and did not disqualify either party.The District Court for Lancaster County denied relief to both objecting parties. For the Democratic Parties, the court found their objection untimely under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 32-624, which requires written objections to party names within seven days of the new party petition filing deadline. For the Republican Party, the court held that “America First Party” did not violate Neb. Rev. Stat. § 32-716(2), as the statute only prohibits names identical to, or containing words from, existing party names, as well as “independent” or “nonpartisan.”The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s orders. The main holdings were: (1) § 32-624 imposes a strict seven-day deadline for objections to new party names, running from the petition filing deadline; late objections are barred. (2) § 32-716(2) does not authorize rejection of a party name based on overlap with slogans or ideals or potential voter confusion unless the name includes prohibited words or names. View "Nebraska Republican Party v. Evnen" on Justia Law

The case arose from a vehicle collision on Interstate 80 in which the plaintiff, Bazan, was struck by a commercial semi-truck owned by Elite Fleet Hauling, LLC. Bazan sued the driver and the company, claiming the accident caused him to suffer a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), or concussion, necessitating ongoing treatment and resulting in significant damages. Elite Fleet admitted fault for the accident but disputed the causation, nature, and extent of Bazan’s injuries. A central issue was the admissibility of expert testimony regarding the cause and extent of Bazan’s alleged brain injury.During the litigation in the District Court for Cass County, Bazan sought to present expert testimony from his treating physician, Dr. Aguila, on causation, permanency, and future medical costs. However, the district court determined that Bazan failed to comply with the expert disclosure requirements specified in its progression order, particularly the requirement for a complete statement of the expert’s opinion and its basis by a set deadline. As a result, the court limited Dr. Aguila’s testimony to treatment provided and excluded his opinions on causation, permanency, and future costs. Meanwhile, Elite Fleet was permitted to present expert testimony from Dr. Ernst, a licensed neuropsychologist, who opined that Bazan did not sustain an mTBI in the collision, over Bazan’s objection that Dr. Ernst was not qualified to render such a diagnosis. The jury ultimately awarded Bazan $100,000, substantially less than he sought. Bazan’s motion for a new trial, challenging the expert witness rulings, was denied.Upon review, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s rulings. The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in enforcing its progression order by excluding Dr. Aguila’s expert opinions due to inadequate and untimely disclosures. The Court also held that Dr. Ernst was qualified under Nebraska law to provide expert testimony on neuropsychological issues, including whether Bazan suffered an mTBI. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. View "Bazan v. Gonser" on Justia Law

The case involved allegations that the defendant sexually abused his stepson, J.M., on multiple occasions between 2019 and 2022. The prosecution charged the defendant with two counts of first degree sexual assault of a child and one count of third degree sexual assault of a child. A key issue arose regarding the age of the victim at the time of one incident. Initially, the charge alleged the victim was between 12 and 15 years old, but testimony at trial indicated the victim was younger than 12. The prosecution successfully moved to amend the information during trial to reflect the victim’s correct age at the time of the offense.Prior to the appeal, the District Court for Douglas County allowed the State to amend the information to align with the evidence presented. The jury found the defendant guilty on all three counts, and the court convicted and sentenced him, also concluding that he committed an aggravated offense requiring lifetime sex offender registration. The defendant, now represented by different counsel, appealed, raising several assignments of error including challenges to the amendment of the information, exclusion of certain evidence, his absence during trial proceedings, and claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.The Nebraska Supreme Court held that the statute defining first degree sexual assault of a child creates a single offense that can be committed in two distinct ways, based on the age of the victim and the age of the defendant. The Court found no abuse of discretion in allowing the amendment of the information, determined that the defendant’s absence during certain trial proceedings did not violate due process, and found no plain error regarding evidentiary exclusions. The Court also concluded that the ineffective assistance claims were either insufficiently specific or lacked merit. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "State v. Ansell" on Justia Law

The appellant shot and killed a woman in a hotel room after paying her for sex. He claimed that he acted in self-defense because he believed the woman was reaching for a gun in her backpack, referencing a previous occasion when he saw a gun there. Evidence presented at trial showed that the appellant rented the hotel room, but the woman reimbursed him and occupied the room for most of the time. The appellant was present in the room for about two hours, had no personal belongings there, and described himself as having rented the room for the woman rather than for himself. The altercation resulted in the appellant shooting the woman, after which he fled the scene and was later apprehended in another state.The District Court for Douglas County instructed the jury on self-defense, including a provision that the appellant had a duty to retreat before using deadly force. The jury convicted the appellant of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. The appellant argued on appeal that the inclusion of the duty to retreat instruction was in error because the hotel room was his dwelling, which under state law would relieve him of a duty to retreat. He also assigned as error the court’s exclusion of certain character evidence and raised claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the trial evidence did not clearly establish the hotel room as the appellant’s place of lodging such that he would be entitled to the privilege of nonretreat. The court held that when evidence is conflicting as to whether a location is the defendant’s dwelling, it is a factual issue for the jury. The court further found no reversible error in the exclusion of character evidence or in the claims of ineffective assistance. The appellant’s convictions were affirmed. View "State v. Nickels" on Justia Law

Two individuals, who had been romantically involved and shared two minor children, ended their relationship in 2016. The mother was awarded legal and physical custody, with the father receiving parenting time under a court-ordered plan. Over subsequent years, the father’s parenting time was suspended due to his refusal or failure to provide negative drug tests, as required by court orders. He also accrued child support arrears and was imprisoned for criminal offenses between August 2023 and August 2024. In May 2024, while the father was incarcerated, the mother filed a complaint to terminate his parental rights, citing abandonment and neglect. The father alleged he was prevented from contacting the children due to changes in contact information and sought a contempt citation against the mother for not facilitating communication.The District Court for Seward County, Nebraska, presided over the termination action and the contempt request. The court found clear and convincing evidence that the father had abandoned the children for at least six months prior to the complaint and that termination was in the children’s best interests. The court also found the father had not exercised or attempted parenting time, nor paid child support during the relevant period, and that his abandonment both preceded and continued after his incarceration. The contempt request was denied, as the court found the mother was not in willful contempt.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the district court was the appropriate forum to hear the termination proceeding, that clear and convincing evidence supported termination of parental rights, and that the contempt issue was moot following termination. The order terminating parental rights was affirmed. View "Roth v. Marcoe" on Justia Law

A family purchased two parcels of land by warranty deed from a trust, through its successor trustee. After the purchase, the buyers adjusted fence lines to match the legal descriptions in the deed. A third party then sued the buyers, seeking to quiet title to portions of the land based on adverse possession. The buyers notified the trust and trustee and requested a defense against the claim, asserting a duty under the warranty deed, but the trust and trustee refused.The third-party action was heard in the District Court for Douglas County. The buyers moved for partial summary judgment, and the court quieted title in their favor. Their counterclaims for slander and attorney fees were denied. The court found the third party had a colorable claim but lacked legal expertise. The buyers subsequently sued the trust and trustee, seeking reimbursement for attorney fees incurred in defending the title, alleging anticipatory repudiation and breach of the warranty deed. After a stipulated bench trial, the district court ruled that Nebraska law does not allow recovery of attorney fees from a grantor when the grantee successfully defends title; a breach of the covenant of warranty only occurs upon an unsuccessful defense resulting in eviction or surrender. The buyers appealed.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the matter de novo as a question of law. The court held that the covenant of warranty in Nebraska does not impose a separate duty to defend against third-party claims, and attorney fees are compensable only if the grantee suffers eviction or surrender under a paramount title. Because the buyers successfully defended their title and were not evicted, there was no breach, and neither the trust nor its trustee was liable. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Morris v. Dall" on Justia Law

The plaintiff sought medical treatment for vision issues and was referred to a board-certified ophthalmologist, who performed cataract surgery on both eyes in March and April 2018. After follow-up appointments and an additional procedure on one eye, the plaintiff’s vision improved compared to before surgery. However, nearly a year later, he experienced retinal detachments in both eyes, which required surgical repairs by another physician. Following these procedures, the plaintiff suffered diminished vision in both eyes.The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice complaint in the District Court for Douglas County, asserting that the physician failed to obtain informed consent prior to the cataract surgeries, particularly by not discussing specific risks associated with prior radial keratotomy (RK) procedures. The physician answered that he met the applicable standard of care and denied any negligence or causation. The district court initially granted summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds, but the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed and remanded, finding the limitations defense had not been properly raised. On remand, after the plaintiff failed to designate any expert witnesses by the deadline, the physician again moved for summary judgment, offering his own affidavit and evidence that the plaintiff had no expert to testify at trial. The plaintiff responded with depositions and affidavits asserting he was not informed of relevant risks and would have declined surgery if properly informed.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and held that, although there was a factual dispute regarding whether the physician breached the standard of care in obtaining informed consent, the plaintiff failed to present competent evidence on proximate causation, an essential element of his claim. The Court found expert testimony was required to establish causation and rejected arguments based on the common knowledge exception and “self-evident damages.” The judgment of the district court granting summary judgment for the physician was affirmed. View "Schuemann v. Timperley" on Justia Law