Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Rosario Betancourt-Garcia was convicted of kidnapping, use of a firearm to commit a felony, and conspiracy to commit kidnapping after his nephew was found bound and gagged in Madison, Nebraska. Betancourt was arrested in Texas and testified that he was working in Houston at the time of the offenses. However, his nephew and another man involved in the kidnapping identified him as a perpetrator. Betancourt was sentenced to life imprisonment for kidnapping, 10 to 30 years for use of a firearm, and 30 to 50 years for conspiracy, to be served concurrently. On direct appeal, his convictions were affirmed, but his sentence for conspiracy was vacated and remanded for resentencing.The district court for Madison County granted Betancourt an evidentiary hearing on some of his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel but denied others. Betancourt appealed the denial of an evidentiary hearing on his remaining claims. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order except for the claim regarding his sentence for conspiracy, which was remanded for a hearing. On remand, the district court corrected Betancourt’s sentences but denied his claims related to his alibi and misidentification defenses, finding that trial counsel made a reasonable strategic decision not to present certain witnesses.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and upheld the district court’s findings. The court found that trial counsel’s decision not to subpoena, depose, or obtain sworn statements from witnesses who could not place Betancourt in Texas on the date of the offenses was reasonable. The court also noted that the witnesses were uncooperative and that their testimony could have corroborated the prosecution’s case. As such, the court concluded that Betancourt was not prejudiced by appellate counsel’s failure to raise the issue on direct appeal. The court also found that Betancourt’s other claims were either addressed or precluded under the law-of-the-case doctrine. The order of the district court was affirmed. View "State v. Betancourt-Garcia" on Justia Law

Shawn Slezak, a mechanic for Lancaster County, Nebraska, filed a grievance after his performance evaluation for 2021 was completed late and by higher-level supervisors rather than his direct supervisor. The evaluation, which was below the threshold for a merit increase, was delayed due to discrepancies between numerical ratings and written comments. Slezak argued that the late evaluation violated the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and sought a merit increase.The Lancaster County Personnel Policy Board found that the late evaluation constituted a breach of contract and awarded Slezak a retroactive merit increase. The County challenged this decision, arguing that the remedy was improper since Slezak's evaluation score did not warrant a merit increase. The District Court for Lancaster County agreed with the County, reversing the Board's decision on the grounds that the remedy made Slezak "more than whole" and was inconsistent with the objective of a damages award in a breach of contract case.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The Court held that the Board's remedy was inappropriate because it exceeded the scope of a damages award in a breach of contract case. The Court emphasized that the objective of such an award is to make the injured party whole, not to provide a benefit they would not have received if the contract had been performed. The Court also noted that Slezak's score on the late evaluation was below the threshold required for a merit increase, and thus, the delay in the evaluation did not cause his injury. The Court concluded that the District Court did not err in reversing the Board's decision and affirmed the order. View "Lancaster County v. Slezak" on Justia Law

Healthy Blue, a vendor, submitted a proposal to operate Nebraska’s Medicaid managed care program but was not selected. After its bid protest and request for reconsideration were denied by the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Healthy Blue filed a lawsuit in the district court for Lancaster County against state officials and the winning bidders. Healthy Blue sought declaratory and injunctive relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA), claiming DHHS acted unlawfully in awarding the contracts.The district court overruled the state officials' motion to dismiss, which argued that Healthy Blue lacked standing as a taxpayer and that the claim was barred by sovereign immunity. The court found that Healthy Blue adequately pled taxpayer standing and that the claim was not barred by sovereign immunity because it sought relief from an invalid act by public officers. The state officials then moved for summary judgment, reiterating their sovereign immunity argument. The district court denied this motion, maintaining that the claim was an official-capacity suit not barred by sovereign immunity.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that the state officials' motion for summary judgment was not based on the assertion of sovereign immunity, as they did not appeal the district court's ruling that the claim was an official-capacity suit. The court emphasized that standing and sovereign immunity are distinct jurisdictional concepts and that the question of standing can be reviewed on appeal of a final order without being effectively lost. Consequently, the Nebraska Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Community Care Health Plan of Nebraska, Inc. v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Daniel Dejaynes-Beaman, aged 18, was charged with the murder of Jolene Harshbarger, who was found dead with 12 stab wounds and evidence of sexual assault. Dejaynes-Beaman confessed to the crime during a police interview. Initially charged with first-degree murder and use of a deadly weapon, he later entered a plea agreement, pleading no contest to second-degree murder and use of a deadly weapon other than a firearm.The District Court for Douglas County accepted his plea and sentenced him to 65 years to life for second-degree murder and 40 to 50 years for the weapon charge, to be served consecutively. Dejaynes-Beaman appealed, arguing that his sentences were unconstitutional and an abuse of discretion. He cited his age and difficult upbringing, including exposure to drug abuse and physical violence, as mitigating factors.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. It noted that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Alabama, which prohibits mandatory life without parole for those under 18, did not apply to Dejaynes-Beaman, who was 18 at the time of the crime. The court also found that the district court had considered all relevant factors, including Dejaynes-Beaman’s age, background, and psychological evaluation, before sentencing.The Nebraska Supreme Court held that the sentences were neither unconstitutional nor an abuse of discretion. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, concluding that the sentences were within statutory limits and appropriately considered the nature of the offense and the mitigating factors presented. View "State v. Dejaynes-Beaman" on Justia Law

Tegra Corporation, a minority interest holder in Lite-Form Technologies, LLC, filed a derivative action against Patrick Boeshart, the LLC’s manager and president, and Sandra Boeshart, the LLC’s bookkeeper and office manager. Tegra alleged that the Boesharts used their positions to enrich themselves at the expense of the LLC. Specific allegations included engaging the LLC in above-market leases with entities they controlled, paying themselves excessive salaries and bonuses, and mismanaging LLC funds by charging personal expenses to the LLC.The District Court for Dakota County dismissed the derivative claims, concluding that a special litigation committee (SLC) appointed under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 21-168 had conducted its investigation and made its recommendation in good faith, independently, and with reasonable care. The SLC, led by Cody Carse, recommended that the claims be settled through a member meeting rather than litigation. Tegra appealed, arguing that the SLC did not act with reasonable care.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and found that the SLC did not exercise reasonable care in its investigation. The court noted that Carse failed to consider the legal elements of Tegra’s claims, did not conduct a cost-benefit analysis, and improperly delegated his duties to the LLC’s members. The court emphasized that Carse’s investigation lacked thoroughness and that he did not adequately assess the potential recovery for the LLC. Consequently, the court reversed the district court’s dismissal of the derivative claims and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the district court to dissolve any stay of discovery and allow the action to proceed under Tegra’s direction. The dismissal of Tegra’s individual claims was affirmed. View "Tegra Corp. v. Boeshart" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between the City of Hastings and a group of appellants referred to as the "chief petitioners." The chief petitioners submitted a referendum petition to repeal a city council measure approving the demolition of a viaduct. The City of Hastings sought a declaratory judgment to determine whether it was required to hold a special referendum election, given that the viaduct was demolished during the pendency of the action.The District Court for Adams County initially denied the chief petitioners' request for a temporary injunction to prevent the demolition. Subsequently, the viaduct was demolished. The district court then ruled that the case was moot because the viaduct no longer existed, and any referendum would be ineffectual. However, the court also addressed other arguments and ultimately declared that no election or ballot submission should be made.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and agreed with the district court's finding that the case was moot. The court noted that the demolition of the viaduct eradicated the parties' legal interests in the dispute, making any referendum on the issue meaningless. The court also considered whether the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine applied but concluded that the specific circumstances of the case did not warrant an authoritative adjudication for future guidance.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the case with directions to dismiss the action due to mootness. View "City of Hastings v. Sheets" on Justia Law

The case involves a boundary dispute between two siblings, Susan Dzingle and Thomas Krcilek, over their adjoining tracts of real property in Valley County, Nebraska. Dzingle owns the northwest quarter, and Krcilek owns the northeast quarter of Section 17. The dispute arose when Krcilek discovered a government survey marker indicating that the true boundary line was approximately 20 feet west of an existing fence that had been in place since at least 1946. Dzingle believed the fence was the true boundary and filed a complaint to establish it as such.The district court for Valley County dismissed Dzingle’s claims based on mutual recognition and acquiescence and the common grantor rule, finding that the parties had not owned their properties for the requisite 10-year period and that the common grantor rule did not apply to quarter sections. The court also rejected Dzingle’s request to reform the deeds based on mutual or unilateral mistake, as there was no evidence of inequitable or fraudulent conduct by Krcilek. The court accepted the survey marker as the true boundary and granted Krcilek’s counterclaims to eject Dzingle from his property and order her to construct a new fence along the survey’s boundary line.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision. It held that the common grantor rule applies only to conveyances described by lot numbers, not by quarter sections. The court also agreed that the doctrine of mutual recognition and acquiescence was inapplicable because the parties had not owned their properties for 10 years and their mother, the previous owner, could not have acquiesced to the boundary. The court found no error in the district court’s acceptance of the survey marker as the true boundary and rejected Dzingle’s claim for reformation of the deeds. View "Dzingle v. Krcilek" on Justia Law

In 2021, Michael D. Davis pleaded guilty to three counts of child abuse and one count of first-degree arson. For the arson conviction, the court imposed a sentence of 20 to 20 years’ imprisonment. Davis filed a direct appeal, but the Nebraska Court of Appeals found no plain error with respect to the sentences imposed. Davis then filed a motion for postconviction relief, asserting that the sentence for arson was void because the minimum term was the same as the maximum term, violating Nebraska law.The district court agreed with Davis, ruling that the arson sentence did not comply with the statutory requirement that the minimum term be less than the maximum term, and was therefore void. The court concluded that it was necessary to resentence Davis for the arson conviction. In October 2023, the court imposed a new sentence of 19 years 11 months to 20 years’ imprisonment for the arson conviction. Davis appealed this new sentence.The Nebraska Supreme Court found that the district court erred in granting Davis' motion for postconviction relief and resentencing him. The Supreme Court held that when a sentencing court imposes an indeterminate sentence but that sentence fails to pronounce a valid minimum term, the minimum term shall be the minimum imposed by law. In this case, the law supplied a valid minimum term of 1 year’s imprisonment, so Davis’ initial sentence was not void. Therefore, the district court had no authority to modify it. The Supreme Court vacated the new sentence and dismissed the appeal. View "State v. Davis" on Justia Law

The case involves an employee, Marlene Mosher, who filed a petition against her employer, Whole Foods Market, Inc., claiming she suffered an injury from a fall during her employment. Mosher alleged that she sustained injury to her right lower extremity and right ankle and developed low-back pain. She claimed that she had suffered periods of temporary disability, required reasonable and necessary medical care, incurred mileage and expenses, and had not yet reached maximum medical improvement (MMI). Mosher also alleged that Whole Foods had failed or refused to provide those benefits, thus, she was entitled to waiting-time penalties and attorney fees.The Workers’ Compensation Court found that Mosher had not yet reached MMI and was unable to return to work without restrictions. The court awarded Mosher temporary total disability benefits, payment for medical bills, future medical care, a waiting-time penalty, and attorney fees. The court found that Whole Foods had no reasonable controversy that compensation was due, which justified a waiting-time penalty. The court also found no reasonable controversy as to medical expenses.Whole Foods appealed, arguing that there was a reasonable controversy as to whether Mosher had reached MMI and, thus, as to whether its obligations to pay temporary total disability ceased and its obligations to pay permanent disability began. Whole Foods also contested the amount of the attorney fees awarded.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court. The court held that when there is no reasonable controversy that the employee has been injured in a workplace accident and is entitled to some indemnity benefit, the employer is not excused from timely payments thereof. The court also held that the plain meaning of a “reasonable attorney’s fee” in § 48-125(4)(a) encompasses the work of a legal assistant for the attorney. View "Mosher v. Whole Foods Market" on Justia Law

The defendant, Jason Assad, was arrested and his property was seized by law enforcement. Among the seized items was a digital video recorder (DVR) that contained footage of an incident between Assad and his wife. This footage was used as evidence in his trial, where he was convicted of first degree false imprisonment, terroristic threats, use of a weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a weapon by a prohibited person. After his conviction and sentencing, Assad sought the return of his seized property, including the DVR.The District Court for Cheyenne County granted Assad's request for the return of most items, but denied the return of the DVR. The court reasoned that the state had an interest in preserving the DVR as evidence for potential future appeals or post-conviction relief efforts by Assad. The court ordered that a complete copy of the contents of the DVR be made and provided to Assad, but the original DVR would remain with the state.Assad appealed this decision to the Nebraska Supreme Court, arguing that the district court erred in denying his request to have the DVR returned to him. The Supreme Court reviewed the case for an abuse of discretion, which occurs when the court's reasons or rulings are clearly untenable and unfairly deprive a litigant of a substantial right and a just result.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion. The court noted that while future actions might be unlikely, it was not impossible that Assad might bring a postconviction action that is not time barred. The court also noted that certain types of motions for new trial are not time barred in any way, and thus, the potential for such a motion—and in turn, a possible new trial—exists as well. Therefore, the state's interest in retaining the DVR and its original contents was justified. View "State v. Assad" on Justia Law