Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This dispute arose from a contractual relationship between Appellant, a provider of audio, Web, and video conferencing services, and Appellee, a corporation engaged in the sale of business software. After Appellee failed to pay for certain services Appellant provided pursuant to a contract, Appellant sued Appellee, asserting breach of contract. Appellee asserted affirmative defenses and a counterclaim to recover what it claimed to be overpayments. The district court granted Appellant's motion with respect to its claim for unpaid invoices but ruled in favor of Appellee on its counterclaim that it was fraudulently induced by Appellant to enter into the original service agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) not finding as a matter of law that Appellee failed to prove that Appellant misrepresented a fact that Appellee relied upon; (2) allowing Appellee to amend its counterclaim to allege material misrepresentation; (3) instructing the jury; and (4) overruling Appellant's motion for new trial or motion to alter or amend the judgment. View "Intercall Inc. v. Engenera, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to second degree murder and was sentenced to forty years to life in prison. The conviction was summarily affirmed. After his first petition for postconviction relief was denied, Defendant filed a pro se second verified motion for postconviction relief and request for an evidentiary hearing, asserting that he was denied his constitutional rights to a fair trial, to due process of law, and to effective assistance of counsel. More specifically, Defendant argued his constitutional rights were violated because trial counsel advised Defendant not to alert the court concerning his mental health history and failed to inform the court that Defendant was on a mind-altering medication. The district court dismissed Defendant's motion without an evidentiary hearing. Defendant appealed the dismissal of his competency issues without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Defendant did not allege that the competency-related issues he raised in his second motion for postconviction relief were not available previously or could not have been raised either on direct appeal or in his first postconviction proceeding, his claims were procedurally barred. View "State v. Watkins" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for second degree assault, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and unlawful membership recruitment into an organization or association in violation of Neb. Reb. Stat. 28-1351. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed Defendant's convictions, holding that the district court did not err with respect to numerous evidentiary and other trial rulings and when it rejected Defendant's constitutional challenges to section 28-1351; but (2) vacated Defendant's sentences, holding that the sentencing court plainly erred in ordering the sentence for use of a deadly weapon to be served concurrently with the sentence for unlawful recruitment. Remanded for resentencing so that the sentence for use of a deadly weapon is ordered to run consecutively to the other sentences imposed. View "State v. Scott" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of first degree felony murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for postconviction relief, claiming (1) he was prejudiced by prosecutorial misconduct, (2) he was deprived of ineffective assistance of counsel, and (3) he was deprived of his right to present a complete defense. The trial court dismissed his motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed as to all matters except for the denial of an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether defense counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue impeachment of the State's key witness with his alleged inconsistent statement. Remanded. View "State v. Poe" on Justia Law

Shirley Krzycki was the sole settlor, trustee, and beneficiary of the Shirley Krzycki Trust established to hold annual payments from an insurance settlement. Upon Shirley's death, Shirley's son Greg was named successor trustee of the Trust. Greg filed suit, claiming that sums on deposit in a bank account, formerly owned by Shirley as "primary joint owner," were property of the Trust. Shirley's daughter Robin was originally named "secondary joint owner" on this account, and Robin refused to give to the Trust the sums on deposit in this account. After a bench trial, the district court held that the balance of the Wells Fargo account belonged to the Trust. The Supreme Court affirmed, but for reasons different from those of the district court, holding (1) the remaining sums on deposit in the bank account for the benefit of the Trust were trust funds belonging to the Trust; and (2) Robin converted the funds in the account for her own use by refusing to turn them over to the Trust. View "Krzycki v. Krzycki" on Justia Law