Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of intentional child abuse that resulted in the death of an infant in her care. Defendant was sentenced to seventy years to life. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that evidence of the infant’s prior injuries while in her care should have been excluded as prior bad acts under Neb. R. Evid. 404. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for mistrial on the basis of allowing the admission of the prior injuries, as the prior injuries were inextricably intertwined with the charged crime; (2) there was no misconduct by the prosecutor during closing argument; (3) Defendant’s sentence was not an abuse of discretion; and (4) Defendant’s counsel did not provide ineffective assistance. View "State v. Cullen" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted in Douglas County of first degree sexual assault. Appellant later filed a pro se complaint in Lancaster County under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against prosecutors, public defenders, and attorneys purportedly involved in the underlying criminal action. Appellant moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The district court, acting sua sponte, objected that venue was not proper in Lancaster County and, on that basis, also objected to the motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court then denied Appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, opining that if Appellant wished to proceed with the action in forma pauperis, he should make his request in Douglas County. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because Iowa law does not permit denial of in forma pauperis based on a sua sponte objection to venue, the district court erred in denying Appellant in forma pauperis status on that basis. Remanded. View "Castonguay v. Retelsdorf" on Justia Law

Castellar Partners LLC was retained by appellees (collectively, the AMP parties) to review a “hedge fund portfolio” and the services being provided by another advisor. Castella and one of the AMP parties - AMP Capital Investors Limited (AMPCI), a subsidiary of AMP incorporated in Australia - executed an “Advisory Agreement” under which Castellar was required to provide its services regarding the fund in exchange for certain fees. The AMP parties terminated their relationship with Castellar the next year. Castellar filed suit, alleging that the AMP parties had “recklessly and willfully” misled it in order to obtain its services with regard to the fund. The district court dismissed one of Castellar’s claims, concluding that due to a forum selection clause, the claim for breach of contract was required to be litigated in New South Wales, Australia. The district court certified the dismissal of that claim as a final judgment, and Castella appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the certification was improper, as Castellar’s claims entailed “similar issues” and “related facts,” and all of the parties remain involved in the litigation before the district court. View "Castellar Partners, LLC v. AMP Ltd." on Justia Law

Devin Witt allegedly drove a pickup truck over Benjamin Carrel’s foot in a parking lot in Beatrice, Nebraska. The truck was registered to Serco, Inc. Carrel brought a personal injury action against Serco and Witt. When Serco did not respond to a service of summons, a show cause order, or notice of Carrel’s motion for a default judgment, the district court entered a default judgment against Serco. The district court denied Serco’s motion to vacate the default judgment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in denying Serco’s motion to vacate the default judgment, holding that, where Serco placed Carrel on notice of its meritorious defense that it did not employ Witt or own the vehicle he was driving at the time of the incident and where any negligence on the part of Serco in responding to the suit was excusable, permitting the default judgment to stand would unfairly deprive Serco of a substantial right and produce an unjust result. Remanded with directions to vacate the default judgment and to give Serco a reasonable time in which to file an appropriate responsive pleading. View "Carrel v. Serco Inc." on Justia Law

David and Pamela Fisher, as “Husband and Wife,” sued U.S. Bank National Association to terminate severed mineral interests, alleging that they had owned the land since 1986. In its answer, US Bank argued that the Fishers, as husband and wife, were not the real parties in interest because, in 2001, the Fishers conveyed the land to themselves as trustees for the David and Pamela Fisher Living Trust. The Fishers subsequently filed an amended complaint adding themselves as plaintiffs in their capacity as trustees. Before the complaint was amended, however, US Bank recorded a verified claim of mineral interest. The district court granted summary judgment for US Bank, concluding that the Fishers’ amended complaint did not relate back to the original complaint under Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-301. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the amended complaint related back under the plain language of section 25-301 because it joined the real parties in interest. Remanded. View "Fisher v. Heirs & Devisees of Lovercheck" on Justia Law

Brian Shaffer, who had severe autism and chemical sensitivities, resided with his mother, Delores Shaffer, who was paid to provide private duty nursing (PDN) care to Brian. In 2011, Brian’s Medicaid coverage was transferred to Coventry Health Care of Nebraska, Inc. When Coventry determined that the nursing services were not medically necessary, Shaffer requested a State fair hearing with the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services. Coventry participated in the administrative proceedings, at which a hearing officer concluded that the PDN services were not medically necessary. Delores sought judicial review of the order, but the petition did not name Coventry as a respondent. The district court reversed the order of the Department, finding the PDN services that Delores provided to Brian were medically necessary. Coventry appealed. The Supreme Court vacated the order of the district court, holding that Coventry was a “party of record” at the State fair hearing and therefore a necessary party in the subsequent appeal to the district court, and the failure to make Coventry a party to the appeal deprived the district court of jurisdiction. View "Shaffer v. Neb. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs." on Justia Law

In 2011, Ameritox, Ltd. sued Millennium Laboratories, Inc. in federal district court in Florida. In 2012, Millennium filed second amended counterclaims in response to Ameritox’s third amended complaint. The Florida court subsequently denied Millennium’s leave to amend its second amended counterclaims. Thereafter, Millennium and two of its employees (collectively, Appellants) sued Brian Ward, one of Ameritox’s employees, in a Nebraska district court. Ward moved to dismiss Appellants’ complaint for failure to state a claim and for failure to join a necessary party, alleging that the claims were barred under the doctrines of res judicata. The district court sustained the motion to dismiss, concluding that the Florida court’s denial of Millennium’s motion to amend its counterclaims barred the claims against Ward. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the denial of leave to amend was not a judgment on the merits for purposes of res judicata and did not bar Millennium’s claims against Ward in the district court. View "Millennium Labs., Inc. v. Ward" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first degree sexual assault and sentenced to three to five years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the district court did not err in (1) failing to allow Defendant to inquire on redirect examination into the nature of his witness’ felony conviction after he was impeached by the State; (2) not granting the parties’ joint motion for mistrial; and (3) admitting certain hearsay statements under the excited utterances exception. The Court further held that because the record was incomplete, the Court could not reach Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal. View "State v. Castillo-Zamora" on Justia Law

Russell Reichert sued Sherry Hara in small claims court, claiming that Hara owed him for a $4,000 loan he gave her. The court found the transaction was a loan and entered judgment for Reichert. Hara subsequently filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in the district court, alleging that the $4,000 was a gift and not a loan. The district court dismissed Hara’s complaint, concluding that the action was barred by both claim preclusion and issue preclusion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) claim preclusion, but not issue preclusion, applies to small claims court judgments; and (2) the elements of claim preclusion were satisfied in this case, and therefore, the district court correctly dismissed Hara’s action. View "Hara v. Reichert" on Justia Law

Appellants filed a products liability action against Daimler-Chrysler Corporation after they were involved in a rollover collision while driving their Chrysler PT Cruiser. Appellants later filed a complaint for declaratory relief against Allianz Versicherungs-Aktiengesellschaft (“Allianz”), an international insurance company that provided insurance to Chrysler, alleging that Allianz had a duty to defend Chrysler in the underlying action. The district court granted summary judgment for Allianz and dismissed the complaint. Twenty months later, Appellants filed a complaint to vacate the summary judgment. The district court sustained Allianz’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the time for exercise of the district court’s inherent power to vacate its judgment had expired; (2) the district court lacked jurisdiction to vacate its judgment because Appellants did not properly serve Allianz; and (3) the district court did not err in invoking its equity jurisdiction to vacate where Appellants had an adequate remedy at law. View "Carlson v. Allianz Versicherungs-Aktiengesellschaft" on Justia Law