Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2002, the Legislature enacted a statute requiring judges, prior to accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, to administer a specific advisement regarding possible consequences of the conviction for persons who are not citizens of the United States. At issue in this appeal was whether the court may deny a motion to set aside a plea under this statute upon proof that a defendant who was not given the required advisement was nevertheless aware of the immigration consequences of the plea and resulting conviction. Here Defendant pled no contest to attempted sexual assault and kidnapping and later filed a motion to withdraw his pleas for the district court's failure to give him the required advisement. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the statute on its face requires that all noncitizens accused of a crime must be given the advisement; (2) Defendant established he was not given the required statutory advisement regarding immigration consequences of conviction and actually faced a consequence as a result of his convictions; and (3) Defendant was entitled to have his judgments of conviction vacated and to withdraw his pleas and enter pleas of not guilty. Remanded. View "State v. Medina-Liborio" on Justia Law

In October 2011, Defendant was charged with, inter alia, first degree murder and possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance. The cases were not consolidated but both cases were set for trial in March 2012. Defendant's counsel requested a continuance in the murder case. The district court continued trial in both cases to July 2012. In June 2012, Defendant moved for discharge in the murder case, alleging that his statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial had been violated. The district court overruled the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in overruling Defendant's motion for discharge based upon a violation of Defendant's statutory or constitutional rights to a speedy trial, as all delays in the trial were the result of Defendants' motion for continuance and motion for discharge. View "State v. Brooks" on Justia Law

In November 2009, Plaintiff filed suit against Bank seeking judgment for principal and interest allegedly due and owing on a $15,000 certificate of deposit (CD) opened by her mother in July 1984. The CD matured in April 1985. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Bank, finding that Plaintiff's claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff had to commence her action either seven years after the maturity date of the CD or one year after July 1, 2008, and therefore, Plaintiff's claims were barred by limitations, and the district court therefore did not err in entering summary judgment for Bank. View "Swift v. Norwest Bank-Omaha West" on Justia Law