Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Brook Valley Limited Partnership (BVLP) filed suit at the district court in 2004 against Mutual Omaha Bank over loans made by the bank. The loans were secured by a partnership property. The real property was ultimately sold to cover payments on the loans. The issue at court was whether the agreements that established the partnerships allowed the partners to bring lawsuits. Though they were nearly identical, the district court determined that under the agreements, certain partners were not empowered to authorize lawsuits. As a result, the court concluded BVLP lacked standing to sue the Bank, and dismissed the case. BVLP appealed. After a review of the partnership agreements at issue in the district court, the Supreme Court found that the successor partners were given the authority to sue. The Court reversed the district courtâs decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The Appellant Rex Moats was a former candidate for the thirty ninth district of Nebraska Legislature. During the course of the 2008 election, the Republican Party paid for and distributed publications in opposition to Moatsâ candidacy. Moats filed a complaint in district court, where he identified in eleven separate publications instances of where he claimed the Republican Party defamed him, portrayed him in a false light and violated several consumer protection laws. The Republican Party filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and the court granted it, dismissing Moatsâ case. The Supreme Court noted that context was critical to analyzing whether a statement was defamatory, particularly if the statement expressed a fact or opinion. The Court examined the circumstances in which each statement was made, finding they were political campaign brochures intended to persuade voters to vote against Moats through the use of rhetoric and hyperbole. The Court characterized all of the cited statements as âopinionâ and held they were protected speech under the Constitution. The Court could not find that the statements violated consumer protection laws. Accordingly, it affirmed the district courtâs decision to dismiss Moatsâ case.

In 2006, Appellant-Defendant Anthony Riley was convicted in the district court for manslaughter and attempted second degree murder stemming from the drive-by shooting that ended with one death and three others injured. Prior to trial, the State filed several motions in limine, seeking to prevent Defendant from discussing at voir dire, in his opening statement, or closing argument, a polygraph test police had administered to one of the Stateâs witnesses. Defendantâs defense strategy focused on proving that someone else in the car, not Defendant, had fired the shots. When Defendant cross-examined one of the Stateâs witnesses, the witness mentioned he had taken a polygraph test. Defendant motioned for a mistrial, but the trial court simply struck mention of the test and ordered the jury to disregard it. The jury returned guilty verdicts for manslaughter and attempted second degree murder. Defendant moved for a new trial. The court overruled the motion and sentenced Defendant to twenty years for manslaughter, and eight to fifteen years on each attempted murder count. The Supreme Court found that Defendantâs claim that he was not the shooter, and the inadvertent mention of the polygraph by the Stateâs witness were prejudicial to Defendant, and that the district court should have granted Defendantâs motion for a mistrial. The Court reversed the lower courtâs decisions and remanded the case for a new trial.

Appellee Betty Vandenberg owned a parcel of land which she leased to individuals who farmed the land. The parcel contained a well, a pump, motor, gear box, and pipe, all of which were used to irrigate the land. The central issue of this case involves the irrigation pump, which hanged inside a cased well and was secured to the land with a cement cap and bolts. The County assessor determined that the pump was taxable as Appelleeâs personal property. She appealed to the Tax Equalization and Review Commission (TERC) which reversed the assessor and called the pump a fixture on the land. The County appealed TERCâs decision. The Supreme Court found that the pump is a trade fixture, a fixture that is taxed as personal property. The Court reversed TERCâs determination and remanded the case for further proceedings on the assessment of tax.