Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Falls City Economic Development and Growth Enterprise, Inc. (EDGE), a Nebraska nonprofit corporation, provided economic development services to the City of Falls City, Nebraska. Plaintiff, a Nebraska citizen, sought records relating to a specific economic development project in which EDGE was involved. EDGE denied the request on the basis that it was not a public entity and that its records were not public records. Plaintiff subsequently filed a complaint and motion for a writ of mandamus to compel production of the requested documents. The district court granted the writ, with the exception of certain documents it determined to be privileged. The Supreme Court vacated and reversed the writ of mandamus, holding that EDGE was not the functional equivalent of an agency, branch, or department of Falls City as a matter of law, and therefore, EDGE’s records requested by Plaintiff were not “public records” within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. 84-712 and 84-712.01. Remanded with directions to dismiss. View "Frederick v. City of Falls City" on Justia Law

L.B. 1161, which was passed in 2012, allows major oil pipeline carriers to bypass the regulatory procedures of the Public Service Commission, instead allowing them to obtain approval from the Governor to exercise the power of eminent domain for building a pipeline in Nebraska. Appellees, a group of landowners, filed a complaint alleging that the bill violated the state Constitution’s equal protection, due process, and separation of powers provisions, as well as the Constitution’s prohibition of special legislation. The district court determined that L.B. 1161 was unconstitutional. Four members of the Supreme Court - a majority of its seven members - held that Appellees had standing to challenge the constitutionality of the bill and that the legislation was unconstitutional. However, because five judges of the Court did not vote on the constitutionality of the bill, the Court held that L.B. must stand by default. View "Thompson v. Heineman" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of intentional child abuse resulting in death and intentional child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury. The Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) the trial court erred by allowing a witness, Defendant’s wife, to testify in the presence of the jury, knowing she would invoke her Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination; (2) the trial court erred in allowing the State to treat the witness as a hostile witness and continue to ask leading questions even after she refused to testify; (3) the trial court erred when it failed to either admonish or instruct the jury not to draw an inference from the witness’s invocation of her right against self-incrimination; and (4) all of the errors, taken together, amounted to reversible error. View "State v. Draper" on Justia Law

When Alexander was approximately twelve years old, he was placed in a program with Envisions of Norfolk, Inc. The juvenile court ordered that Alexander remain in the Envisions program until further order of the court. Less than two months later, Alexander was moved into a new foster home without further order of the court and without notice. The juvenile court found the Department of Health and Human Services and Nebraska Families Collaborative in contempt of court and ordered them to pay a fine of $5,000 or purge the contempt by complying with certain conditions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the juvenile court (1) did not abuse its discretion in finding the Department to be in contempt of court; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sanction. View "In re Interest of Zachary D." on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought an action against the City of Omaha under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (PSTCA), alleging that the City was responsible for injuries Plaintiff sustained in a slip-and-fall accident on a sidewalk. The district court granted summary judgment for the City, concluding that Plaintiff’s claim was barred by the “snow or ice” exemption in the PSTCA, which exempts claims arising out of snow or ice conditions in a public place due to weather. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that Plaintiff’s claim was barred under the snow or ice exemption. View "Stick v. City of Omaha" on Justia Law