by
The Supreme Court dismissal this appeal from an order of the district court denying Appellant’s request for a stay of an order of sale in a judicial foreclosure action, holding that the order denying the request for a stay was not appealable. The district court determined that Appellant and his former spouse owed Mutual of Omaha Bank $533,459, ordered an execution sale, and foreclosed Appellant and his former spouse from asserting any interest in the property. Mutual subsequently applied to and received from the district court a supplemental decree ordering that sums paid by Mutual that were not included in the initial decree be added to the amount due Mutual. After Appellant unsuccessfully requested a stay of the order of sale Appellant appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, holding (1) because a supplemental decree like the one at issue in this case does not give rise to a right to seek a statutory stay the district court’s order denying Appellant’s request for a stay did not affect an essential legal right; and (2) therefore, the order was not final, and this Court lacked jurisdiction to decide the appeal. View "Mutual of Omaha Bank v. Watson" on Justia Law

by
At issue in this appeal was whether the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider Azar Webb’s 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim in the same lawsuit in which the court considered an appeal from a contested case under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and whether, as a result, the court lacked the authority to award Webb attorney fees. After the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) ended Webb’s Medicaid benefits and denied his petition for reinstatement, Webb filed a claim in the district court under the APA for unlawful termination of Medicaid eligibility, adding a claim of violation of his federal rights under section 1983. The district court reversed DHHS’ decision and ordered reinstatement of Webb’s coverage and reimbursement of medical expenses that should have been covered. The court further found in favor of Webb as to his 1983 claim and enjoined DHHS officials from denying Webb Medicaid eligibility. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that once the district court resolved Webb’s APA claim, the court had the authority to grant Webb relief under section 1983 and his request for attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988. View "Webb v. Nebraska Department of Health & Human Services" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences for first degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person but modified the sentencing order to reflect additional credit for time served, holding that no prejudicial error occurred with respect to Defendant’s convictions but that the district court erred when it did not give Defendant credit for ninety-one days of time served in Wyoming. Specifically, the Court held (1) Defendant’s assignments of error related to instructions that the court gave or refused to give were unavailing; (2) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s conviction for first degree murder; and (3) while the court did not impose excessive sentences, it did fail to give Defendant adequate credit for time served. View "State v. Mueller" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law

by
The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal of a district court order overruling his motion to reconsider the denial of his motion to transfer to juvenile court under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1816, holding that the Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Appellant was seventeen years old when he was charged sex-related offenses. Appellant timely filed a motion to transfer to juvenile court, but the motion was overruled. Appellant later filed a motion to reconsider the denial of his motion to transfer. The court overruled the motion. Appellant appealed the order overruling his motion to reconsider. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that because Appellant failed to appeal the order denying his underlying motion to transfer within the statutory time period, the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to consider any subsequent appeal of the order on Appellant’s motion to transfer. View "State v. Uhing" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law

by
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court denying without a hearing Appellant’s motion seeking a hearing at which he could prove that he was not informed of the district court’s denial of his motion for postconviction relief and was thus unable to file a timely appeal from the denial of postconviction relief, holding that the district court erred in denying the motion without a hearing. Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and other crimes. Appellant later filed a motion seeking postconviction relief. The district court dismissed the motion, and the clerk of the court certified that a copy of that dismissal was sent to the State and to Appellant. Thereafter, Appellant filed a motion alleging that he never received a copy of the order dismissing his postconviction motion and was thus unable to file a timely appeal. Appellant’s motion was denied. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the cause for a hearing at which Appellant may offer evidence in connection with his claims, holding that the district court erred in denying the motion without a hearing. View "State v. Parnell" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law

by
The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court denying Defendant’s motion for testing under the DNA Testing Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-4116 to 29-4125, and Defendant’s motion for the appointment of counsel, holding that the district court applied principles governing relief which might be available after testing when it should have limited its consideration to whether it was required to order testing. Defendant was convicted of murder. Nearly twenty years later, Defendant filed a motion pursuant to the DNA Testing Act seeking DNA testing of twenty-six items of evidence taken from the crime scene. After a hearing, the district court denied the motion, concluding that testing wasn’t warranted under section 29-4120(5)(c) because the results would not provide exculpatory evidence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court’s order failed to make clear that its denial of DNA testing was based solely on section 29-4120(5), and therefore, the case must be remanded to the district court for a determination under that section based upon the existing record. View "State v. Myers" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences for first degree murder and first degree assault, affirmed his convictions but vacated his sentences for use of a weapon to commit a felony and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person, holding that the district court committed plain error. Specifically, the Court held (1) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s convictions; (2) the district court did not err in not instructing the jury on the lesser-included offense of manslaughter; but (3) the district court committed plain error with respect to the convictions for possession by a prohibited person and use of a deadly weapon. The Court remanded this cause to the district court for resentencing. View "State v. Lessley" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law

by
The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal after the district court administratively dismissed a negligence action for failure to timely submit a proposed scheduling order and then granted a motion to reinstate the case, holding that the district court’s reinstatement order was not a final, appealable order. On appeal, Appellants argued that the district erred when it applied the local rules regarding reinstatement of cases instead of Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-201.01 to decide whether to reinstate the case. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the order vacating dismissal and reinstating the case put the parties back in approximately the same litigation posture as before the action was dismissed, and there was no reason to disrupt the progression of the case by entertaining an interlocutory appeal. View "Fidler v. Life Care Centers of America" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of possession of a controlled substance and child abuse, holding that Defendant was not unconstitutionally seized when Defendant was detained beyond the time reasonably necessary to complete the mission of the traffic stop. Defendant was driving a vehicle owned by his girlfriend when law enforcement stopped him to investigate a citizen report of dangerous driving. Defendant’s children were in the back seat of the vehicle when Defendant was stopped at a gas station. Dafter completing their routine investigation related to the stop law enforcement discovered that Defendant was driving with a suspended license and had an outstanding warrant for his arrest. Thirty minutes later, the vehicle was searched by drug detection dogs. Police officers then searched the car and discovered methamphetamine. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress because the discovery of the methamphetamine was not the product of an illegal search and seizure; (2) Defendant’s assignments of error related to the evidentiary rulings at trial were unavailing; and (3) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction for child abuse. View "State v. Ferguson" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court that rescinded an ex parte domestic abuse protection order against Oscar G., holding that the district court did not err in rescinding the ex parte domestic abuse protection order against Oscar. Maria A. and Oscar were the biological parents of Leslie G. Maria filed a petition on Leslie’s behalf to obtain a domestic abuse protection order against Oscar. The district court entered an ex parte domestic abuse protection order barring Oscar from any contact with Oscar. Oscar later requested a hearing on the matter pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 42-925 to show cause why the protection order should not remain in effect. After a show cause hearing, the district court entered an order rescinding the ex parte domestic abuse protection order pertaining to Leslie. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding that the evidence as a whole was insufficient to show cause why the protection order should not remain in effect. View "Maria A. v. Oscar G." on Justia Law

Posted in: Family Law