Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Keloni Jones was involved in an altercation outside a bar in Omaha, Nebraska, where she shot and killed a security guard. She was initially charged with second-degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Under a plea agreement, the charges were amended to manslaughter and possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony, to which Jones pled no contest.The District Court for Douglas County initially sentenced Jones to 20 to 20 years for manslaughter and 20 years plus 1 day for possession of a deadly weapon, to be served consecutively. However, the court later realized the manslaughter sentence was invalid as it did not comply with statutory requirements. The court reconvened and modified the manslaughter sentence to 19 years 364 days to 20 years, while keeping the possession of a deadly weapon sentence unchanged.Jones appealed, arguing that the district court erred in modifying the sentence and that the sentences were excessive. The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that the district court had the authority to modify the invalid sentence before it was entered into the court's records. The court also found that the sentences were within statutory limits and not an abuse of discretion, considering the nature of the crime and the benefits Jones received from the plea agreement.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding the modified sentences. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

The case involves the defendant, who was convicted of first and third degree sexual assault of his stepdaughter. The assaults allegedly occurred between December 1, 2021, and February 24, 2022, in Grand Island, Hall County, Nebraska. The victim, a minor, reported the assaults to her boyfriend, who then informed school authorities, leading to the defendant's arrest. The victim testified that the assaults included both nonpenetrative and penetrative acts, with the latter occurring shortly before she disclosed the abuse.In the District Court for Hall County, the defendant filed a praecipe for a subpoena duces tecum to have a doctor testify about a medical report indicating the victim reported a sexual assault occurring approximately four months prior to March 25, 2022. The court quashed the subpoena and barred the evidence, citing a discovery violation and failure to follow proper procedures for obtaining privileged medical records. The court also denied the defendant's motion in limine to exclude evidence of prior sexual assaults outside the charged timeframe.The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the defendant failed to preserve the issue of the discovery sanction for appeal by not renewing the offer of proof at trial. The court also found no prejudice from the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, as the defendant did not specifically assign as error the failure to make an offer of proof at trial or to question the victim about her statement to the doctor.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court held that the defendant adequately preserved the issue of the discovery sanction through his offer of exhibit 2 and the evidence adduced at trial. However, the court found that any error in excluding the evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, as the defendant was able to confront the victim with similar inconsistent statements during cross-examination. The court also concluded that the defendant could not establish prejudice from the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, as the exclusion of the evidence did not materially influence the outcome of the case. View "State v. Aquino" on Justia Law

Boone River, LLC purchased a tax certificate and later obtained a tax deed for property owned by Nancy J. Miles, Cheryl L. Bettin, and Robert R. Moninger. Boone River transferred the property to 11T NE, LLC, which then sued to quiet title. The court voided the tax deed and quieted title in favor of Miles, Bettin, and Moninger. Boone River and 11T subsequently filed a complaint for unjust enrichment, seeking compensation for taxes paid and maintenance costs. Miles and Bettin counterclaimed, citing an offer of judgment under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-901, which Boone River and 11T did not accept.The district court initially ruled in favor of Boone River and 11T, awarding them $16,918.68. Miles and Bettin appealed, and the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the judgment against them, affirming it only against Moninger. Following the mandate, the district court entered judgment in favor of Miles and Bettin. Miles and Bettin then filed a motion for costs under § 25-901, which Boone River and 11T opposed.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that the district court erred in dismissing Miles and Bettin’s motion for costs. The Supreme Court clarified that the obligation under § 25-901 for the plaintiff to pay costs applies when the plaintiff fails to obtain a judgment for more than the offer, including when judgment is entered against the plaintiff. The court also held that an offer of judgment under § 25-901 retains its cost-shifting effect throughout the case, including on remand.The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the district court’s order and remanded the case with directions to determine the costs to which Miles and Bettin are entitled under § 25-901, explicitly stating that "cost" under § 25-901 does not include attorney fees. View "Boone River, LLC v. Miles" on Justia Law

Leaf Supreme Products, LLC sued James and Adella Bachman, who counterclaimed. A jury found in favor of Leaf Supreme on a conversion claim, awarding approximately $200,000 in damages. Believing all claims resolved, the Bachmans attempted to appeal, but the Nebraska Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, noting unresolved claims. Leaf Supreme then sought a debtor’s examination of the Bachmans, which the district court ordered on February 3, 2023, before entering a final judgment on February 6, 2023.The district court’s February 3 order was void as it was issued before a final judgment. The Bachmans did not comply with this order or subsequent orders, leading the district court to hold them in contempt on May 4, 2023, and again on September 7, 2023, imposing sanctions and ordering them to produce financial information and appear for questioning. The district court reiterated this on March 1, 2024, ordering their incarceration unless they complied.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that the February 3 order was void because it was issued before a final judgment, and refusal to obey a void order is not contempt. The subsequent orders were also void as they were based on the initial void order. The court found that the September 7 order did not clearly indicate it was a new, separate order in aid of execution, thus failing to provide clear warning to the Bachmans.The Nebraska Supreme Court vacated the district court’s contempt order and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the district court to issue a new, valid order for a debtor’s examination. View "Leaf Supreme Prods. v. Bachman" on Justia Law

A property owner applied for a conditional use permit to build a commercial hog facility on its land in rural Cherry County, Nebraska. The facility was intended to provide manure for fertilizing the owner's crops. Neighboring landowners objected to the issuance of the permit, arguing that the owner, not being the operator of the facility, could not establish compliance with zoning regulations regarding odor mitigation and water contamination.The Cherry County Board of Commissioners issued the permit, and the neighboring landowners appealed to the district court, seeking a trial de novo. The district court held a trial and determined that the owner's application complied with the relevant zoning regulations, affirming the issuance of the permit. The neighboring landowners then appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court, while the Board cross-appealed, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the neighboring landowners' appeal.The Nebraska Supreme Court found that the district court had jurisdiction over the appeal, as the relevant statutes did not limit the right to appeal to applicants only. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in finding that the property owner demonstrated compliance with the zoning regulations. The court held that the property owner, not the operator, was responsible for showing compliance with the regulations and that the odor and water contamination mitigation plans submitted by the owner were sufficient. The court affirmed the district court's decision to uphold the issuance of the conditional use permit. View "Amorak v. Cherry Cty. Bd. of Comrs." on Justia Law

A business owner and his company, which provides non-emergency medical transportation, challenged the constitutionality of a Nebraska statute requiring a showing of "public convenience and necessity" to obtain a certificate to operate such services. They argued that the statute violated the Nebraska Constitution's due process, special legislation, and special privileges and immunities clauses. They claimed the requirement protected existing providers from competition and harmed the public by reducing service quality.The district court for Lancaster County rejected their constitutional challenges and dismissed their complaint. The court applied a rational basis test to the due process claim, finding the statute rationally related to a legitimate state interest in preventing destructive competition and ensuring reliable transportation services. The court also found the statute did not create an arbitrary or unreasonable classification or a closed class, thus rejecting the special legislation claim. Finally, the court determined the statute did not grant irrevocable special privileges or immunities, dismissing the special privileges and immunities claim.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's rejection of the facial constitutional challenges, agreeing that the statute was rationally related to a legitimate state interest and did not violate the special legislation or special privileges and immunities clauses. However, the Supreme Court vacated the district court's order to the extent it ruled on as-applied challenges, determining that such challenges should be raised in an application for certification and an appeal from any denial by the Public Service Commission. View "N'Da v. Golden" on Justia Law

A 10-year-old student at an elementary school in Lincoln, Nebraska, was injured during a game of tag in a physical education class. The student was holding a pool noodle to tag classmates when another student, K.H., grabbed the pool noodle, causing the student to fall and hit her head. The student's mother sued the school district for negligence. The school district claimed sovereign immunity under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (PSTCA), arguing the claim arose from a battery.The district court overruled the school district's motion for summary judgment, finding a factual dispute about whether the pool noodle was part of the student's body. The court noted that while K.H. intentionally grabbed the pool noodle without the student's consent, it was unclear if this contact constituted a battery since the pool noodle was not necessarily part of the student's person.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court noted that public school districts are political subdivisions under the PSTCA and that if a claim falls within an exemption, the political subdivision is not liable. The court examined whether the contact with the pool noodle could be considered offensive contact with the student's body, which would constitute a battery. The court found that whether an object is part of a person's body is determined on an objective reasonable person basis and that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding this question.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the factual dispute about whether the pool noodle was part of the student's body precluded summary judgment. The case was allowed to proceed to determine if the school district retained sovereign immunity. View "Scott v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001" on Justia Law

Dennis C. Jackson, a prison inmate, sought judicial review in the district court for Johnson County of an agency’s final decision under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Jackson filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) along with his petition. The district court did not explicitly rule on the IFP application and dismissed Jackson’s APA petition as untimely. Jackson appealed the dismissal.The district court did not grant Jackson’s IFP application, instead deferring its ruling until Jackson filed an amended petition. Jackson complied, but the court dismissed the petition for being untimely, citing incorrect dates. Jackson filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court overruled without addressing the IFP application. Jackson then appealed to the Nebraska Court of Appeals, filing another IFP application for the appeal.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. It found that the district court implicitly denied Jackson’s IFP application by dismissing the petition without ruling on the application. The Supreme Court determined that the district court erred by not following statutory procedures for IFP applications and by incorrectly calculating the timeliness of Jackson’s petition. The court held that Jackson’s petitions were neither frivolous nor malicious and that the denial of IFP status was plainly erroneous.The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the district court’s denial of Jackson’s IFP application and remanded the case with directions to grant the initial IFP application and proceed with further actions consistent with its opinion. View "Jackson v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Clint Seemann and Lisa Seemann, now known as Lisa Newell, married in 2005 and executed a premarital agreement listing their premarital assets, which included land and shares of stock, to be considered marital property. The agreement specified that these assets, along with any property resulting from their efforts during the marriage, should be divided equally in the event of death or divorce. In 2021, Clint filed for divorce.The District Court for Douglas County initially valued Lisa’s retirement accounts at $1,480,720 and included them in the marital estate. It determined that Clint’s membership interest in 75th and L Street, LLC, and its appreciation were nonmarital property. The court found the premarital agreement enforceable and divided the marital estate equally, ordering Lisa to make an equalization payment to Clint. Lisa appealed, and the Nebraska Supreme Court in Seemann v. Seemann (Seemann I) found errors in the district court’s valuation and inclusion of certain assets, remanding the case for redivision of the marital estate.On remand, the district court divided the marital property into two groups: assets listed in the agreement and the remainder of the marital estate. It equally divided the listed assets but awarded Clint all the assets added on remand without ordering an equalization payment, resulting in an unequal division of the total marital estate. Lisa received 45.25% of the total marital estate, while Clint received 54.75%.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and held that the premarital agreement required an equal division of the entire marital estate. The court reversed the district court’s division and remanded with directions to divide the entire marital estate equally. View "Seemann v. Seemann" on Justia Law

Keith L. Allen was convicted of first-degree murder and use of a firearm to commit a felony, resulting in a life sentence plus 20 to 30 years. After his convictions were affirmed on direct appeal, Allen filed a motion in the district court for Lincoln County, Nebraska, seeking the return of over 50 items of personal property allegedly seized from him after his arrest. These items included firearms, video recordings, and bullet slugs. At the hearing, Allen claimed that many of the firearms belonged to other people and that certain items were needed for his criminal case and a wrongful death suit against him. The State argued that some items should remain as evidence.The district court partially denied Allen's motion, categorizing the items into evidence, contraband, or other items. The court ordered that evidence be retained, contraband be sold, and other items be returned to Allen, subject to a prejudgment attachment order from the wrongful death suit. Allen objected to the admission of the prejudgment attachment order and the exclusion of receipts purportedly showing third-party ownership of the firearms. He also argued that the State failed to prove a legitimate reason to retain the property.The Nebraska Supreme Court found that the district court plainly erred in several respects. The court did not require Allen to make an initial showing that the items were seized from him, improperly relied on Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-820, and failed to identify which firearms and ammunition were evidence. The Supreme Court reversed the district court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "State v. Allen" on Justia Law