Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Four of Jacobs Cattle Company's six partners sought dissolution and liquidation of the family partnership. One of the other two partners then sought a judicial dissociation of those four partners (Appellants). The district court refused to dissolve and liquidate the partnership but, instead, dissociated Appellants and ordered that the partnership buy out their interests in the partnership. Appellants appealed, arguing that the district court erred in not dissolving the partnership and in determining the proper buyout price. The other two partners and the partnership cross-apppealed, arguing that the court erred in determining the date of asset valuation. The Supreme Court affirmed in part as modified and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) the district court did not err in its decision to dissociate Appellants from the partnership by judicial expulsion and in its decision to refuse to dissolve the partnership; (2) the district court erred in failing to allow Appellants to introduce evidence on the proper calculcation of the buyout price; and (3) the district court erred in its determination with respect to interest. Remanded. View "Robertson v. Jacobs Cattle Co." on Justia Law

In 2009, a sign fell on Plaintiff's pickup truck while it was parked in a lot owned by Wilkinson Development (Wilkinson). Plaintiff was injured, and his wife was killed. The sign collapsed as a result of the shearing of a section of the steel pole that held the sign. Plaintiff subsequently sued Wilkinson, Tri-City Sign Company (Tri-City), which installed the sign in 1999, and Love Signs of North Platte (Love Signs), which replaced lamps and ballasts in the sign, for personal injury and wrongful death. The district court (1) sustained Tri-City's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the action was barred by the ten-year statute of repose; and (2) sustained Love Signs' motion for summary judgment, finding there was no evidence Love Signs breached a duty of reasonable care when it performed work on the sign. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff's claims against Tri-City were time barred by the applicable statute of repose; and (2) Love Signs owed Plaintiff no duty to discover any latent defect in the sign. View "Durre v. Wilkinson Dev., Inc." on Justia Law

A law enforcement officer pulled over Defendant's vehicle because it momentarily crossed over the divider line between two eastbound lines on an interstate. Because of suspicions he developed while issuing a warning ticket for the alleged traffic violation, the officer searched the vehicle and discovered cocaine in the trunk. Defendant was charged with unlawful possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, which the district court overruled. The court subsequently convicted Defendant as charged. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) evidence that Defendant's vehicle momentarily crossed a lane divider line, without more, did not establish a statutory violation and thereby provide probable cause for a traffic stop; and (2) because the officer admitted that this "happens all the time" and failed to distinguish how this case differed from normal behavior, there was not reasonable suspicion of criminal activity sufficient to support an investigatory stop. Remanded. View "State v. Au" on Justia Law

Employee suffered an accident arising out of the course of his employment on October 23, 2007. Employee filed a workers' compensation action on February 28, 2012 against Employer, seeking relief under an amended version of Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-121(3), alleging that he was entitled to benefits calculated on the basis of the loss of earning capacity pursuant to this amendment. The Legislature specified that the operative date of the amendment to the statute was January 1, 2008. The workers' compensation court granted summary judgment for Employer, concluding that the amendment was substantive rather than procedural and that because Employee's accident and injuries occurred prior to the operative date of the amendment, Employee could not recover for a loss of earning capacity under the amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the amendment to section 48-121(3) did not apply to Employee's action, he could not recover for an alleged loss of earning capacity on that basis. View "Smith v. Mark Chrisman Trucking, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant sued Doctor for medical malpractice. After a jury trial, the district court ruled in favor of Doctor. During trial, the court permitted Doctor to question one of Appellant's treating physicians about his opinion of Doctor's performance in treating Appellant for hip pain even though neither party had designated the treating physician as an expert. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court erroneously admitted the disputed testimony about the standard of care but that the error was harmless because the parties' designated experts provided similar evidence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the trial court's ruling denied Appellant any opportunity to challenge the presumptive validity and weight that a jury would have given to Appellant's own treating physician testifying as an expert against him; and (2) therefore, the error was prejudicial. Remanded for a new trial. View "Simon v. Drake" on Justia Law

After Employees separated from their employment with employer, Employer denied Employees' demand for payment of their unused "paid time off" (PTO) hours. The county court granted summary judgment for Employees, concluding that Employer was required to pay earned but unused PRO hours to Employees. The district court affirmed. At issue was whether Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-1229 of the Wage Payment and Collection Act (Act) entitled Employees to collect their unused PTO hours despite a provision in an employee manual that Employer would not pay them. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that regardless of the label Employer attached to its PTO hours, they were indistinguishable from earned vacation time under section 48-1229, and like earned vacation time, Employees had an unconditional right to use their earned PTO hours for any purpose. View "Fisher v. PayFlex Sys. USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendants gave a promissory note to Bank and secured a loan with a trust deed on real property. Defendants defaulted on the note, and Bank initiated foreclosure proceedings. The property was sold after a sheriff's sale. Bank subsequently filed a complaint to recover the deficiency. The district court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that because Bank filed its complaint ninety-nine days after the sheriff's sale, the action was barred by the three-month statute of limitations in Neb. Rev. Stat. 76-1013. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the special three-month statute of limitations on actions for deficiency set forth in the Nebraska Trust Deeds Act applies where a lender elects to judicially foreclose upon the real estate, but the special limitation applies only where the property has been sold by exercising the power of sale set forth in the trust deed; and (2) because the judicial foreclosure of the trust deed in this case did not result in the sale of property under a trust deed, it did not fall under the statutory language in section 76-1013, and the deficiency action was governed by the general statute of limitations for actions on written contracts. Remanded. View "First Nat'l Bank of Omaha v. Davey" on Justia Law