Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

An individual Nebraska resident, voter, and taxpayer sought declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the constitutionality of two medical cannabis laws enacted by voter-approved initiatives in the November 2024 general election. He named as defendants the Governor, other state officials, members of the Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission, and the sponsors of the initiatives. The plaintiff alleged the laws violated the federal Supremacy Clause, improperly delegated regulatory authority in violation of Nebraska’s separation of powers, and were otherwise unconstitutional. He further claimed public officials and agencies would expend state funds and resources to implement these laws, and that this expenditure was unlawful.Previously, before the laws passed, the same individual brought a preelection challenge to the legal sufficiency of the initiative petitions in the District Court for Lancaster County. That challenge was rejected, and the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed. After the election, he filed a new action in the same district court, seeking to enjoin the Governor from certifying the measures. The district court denied his request for a temporary restraining order. Once the laws were certified and enacted, he amended his complaint several times, ultimately alleging taxpayer standing, standing for a matter of great public concern, and standing under a Nebraska statute governing initiative challenges. The defendants moved to dismiss, contending he lacked standing.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the suit. Specifically, it concluded he did not have taxpayer standing, as his allegations of incidental expenditures and government employee time spent implementing the laws did not amount to illegal expenditures sufficient to confer standing under Nebraska law. The Court also found he did not qualify for any exception for matters of great public concern. The order dismissing his complaint without prejudice was affirmed. View "Kuehn v. Pillen" on Justia Law

In this case, two candidates competed in the Nebraska Democratic Party’s 2026 U.S. Senate primary election; after the winner, Cindy Burbank, withdrew from the race, the runner-up, William Forbes, sued the party. Forbes argued that Nebraska law required the Democratic Party to nominate a replacement candidate for the general election ballot. He supported his claim by citing statutory language and asserted that, as a longtime registered Democratic voter, he would be deprived of the opportunity to support a Democratic nominee if the party did not name a replacement.The District Court for Lancaster County reviewed Forbes’ claims after expedited proceedings. The court first addressed whether Forbes had standing, finding that his status as a party voter provided a sufficient stake to pursue the lawsuit. On the merits, the district court rejected Forbes’ interpretation of the relevant Nebraska statutes, concluding that while the statutes set forth a process for replacing withdrawn candidates, they did not obligate political parties to do so. The court denied Forbes’ request for a temporary injunction and subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of the Nebraska Democratic Party.The Nebraska Supreme Court, upon bypass appeal, independently reviewed the district court’s findings. It affirmed that Forbes had standing. On the statutory interpretation, the court held that Nebraska law gives political parties discretion whether to nominate a replacement candidate after a withdrawal; the statutes do not create a mandatory obligation. The court reasoned that harmonizing the statutory language most naturally allows parties to choose whether to fill a vacancy, and if so, mandates the process to follow. Accordingly, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment, finding that Forbes’ claim lacked merit. View "Forbes v. Nebraska Democratic Party" on Justia Law

Sponsors of a ballot initiative in Nebraska sought to have their proposed constitutional amendment, which would protect the powers of initiative and referendum, placed on the November 2026 general election ballot. The initiative aimed to require a four-fifths vote of the Legislature to amend, repeal, or impair laws enacted by initiative after November 2, 2004, and to similarly restrict the Legislature’s authority over laws affecting the initiative and referendum process itself. It also imposed a requirement that any laws facilitating or safeguarding the process advance a compelling state interest by the least restrictive means and prohibited legislative acts that would condition, restrict, burden, or impair these reserved powers.After the sponsors collected sufficient signatures, the Nebraska Secretary of State reviewed the measure. Following an objection by a current and a former state senator, the Secretary determined that the initiative violated Nebraska’s constitutional single subject rule and announced that he would not place it on the ballot.The sponsors filed an emergency application for a writ of mandamus directly with the Nebraska Supreme Court, asking the court to compel the Secretary to certify the initiative for the ballot. The Secretary argued that he was obligated to withhold ballot placement because the initiative contained more than one subject, contrary to the Nebraska Constitution. The Nebraska Supreme Court, exercising original jurisdiction, reviewed the matter de novo as a question of law.The Nebraska Supreme Court held that the proposed initiative violated the single subject rule because it addressed at least two distinct subjects: limiting legislative power over both the initiative process and the substance of laws enacted by initiative. The court concluded that these subjects were not naturally and necessarily connected. Accordingly, the court denied the writ of mandamus and dissolved its alternative writ, holding that the Secretary had no duty to place the initiative on the ballot. View "State ex rel. Davis v. Evnen" on Justia Law

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