Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Butler County Diary, LLC (BCD) requested a permit to install a liquid livestock manure pipeline under a public road. Read Township and Butler County cited two regulations it had adopted governing livestock confinement facilities in denying BCD's request. BCD challenged the regulations, alleging that the regulations were invalid and unenforceable. The district court ruled that the Township had the statutory authority to enact the regulations and that they were not preempted by the Livestock Waste Management Act or Nebraska's Department of Environmental Quality livestock waste control regulations. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Township had the statutory authority to enact the pertinent regulations and the regulations were not preempted by state statute or regulation. View "Butler County Dairy, LLC v. Butler County" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted and sentenced for the Class II felony offense of attempted kidnapping. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, claiming that his trial and appellate counsels were ineffective for failing to challenge the classification of the felony. At the time Defendant was sentenced, criminal attempt was a Class II felony when the crime attempted was a Class IA felony offense and was a Class III felony when the crime attempted was a Class II felony offense. The postconviction court denied Defendant's petition. The court of appeals reversed and remanded, finding that Defendant's counsel was ineffective for not challenging the classification at sentencing. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and affirmed the decision of the postconviction court, holding that Defendant failed to establish the trial and appellate counsel were ineffective in failing to raise at sentencing or on direct appeal that Defendant should have been sentenced for attempted kidnapping as a Class III felony. View "State v. Pittman" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of misdemeanor child abuse in the county court as the result of an incident in which she left her three minor children, including a six-week-old infant, unattended in her home. Sitting as an intermediate appellate court, the district court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence, reasoning the evidence was sufficient to establish Defendant acted negligently because she left the children home alone for more than one hour while she went drinking with friends. The court also found that evidence was sufficient to support a finding Defendant denied her infant necessary care. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction, and the district court did not err in so finding. View "State v. Eagle Bull" on Justia Law

This appeal involved a declaratory judgment action challenging the constitutionality of a municipal ordinance creating an offstreet parking district adjoining a Cabela's store. Plaintiff, a resident of the City, filed a complaint against the City and its mayor and city council members, seeking a declaration of the unconstitutionality of the ordinance. The district court found the action was barred by the general four-year statute of limitations because it was commenced more than four years after the ordinance was adopted. At issue on appeal was when the statute of limitations began to run. The Supreme Court reversed without reaching the constitutionality of the ordinance because the Court could not tell from the face of Plaintiff's complaint when Plaintiff's cause of action accrued for purposes of the running of the statute of limitations. Remanded. View "Lindner v. Kindig" on Justia Law

Appellees brought this negligence action in the district court against Appellant, the County of Madison, under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act after two of Appellees were injured in a single-vehicle accident after they drove into a washout on a vacated county road. Appellees claimed the County should have maintained a "Road Closed" warning sign at the entrance to the road. The district court found the County liable for negligence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred when it based its negligence determination in favor of Appellees on its erroneous determination that the County breached its duty to maintain the road, as the central issue in this case was whether the County had met its obligations relative to the warning sign it had chosen to erect. Remanded with directions to find whether the County had actual or constructive notice that its warning sign was down on the date of the accident and whether the County had reasonable time to correct the problem. View "Blaser v. County of Madison" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of third degree assault. The district court sentenced Defendant to twenty-four months of probation and ordered him to pay restitution to the victim. Defendant appealed, challenging the restitution order and alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in requiring Defendant to pay restitution for the victim's medical expenses for a broken jaw and lost income; and (2) Defendant's claims of error regarding the effectiveness of trial counsel were not appropriate for review on direct appeal, as the record was insufficient to address the claims. View "State v. Ramirez" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of discharging a firearm at a dwelling while in or near a motor vehicle, second degree assault, and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Defendant appealed his convictions and sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant waived his objection to testimony given at trial concerning whether he possessed firearms after a second shooting; (2) the court did not err in admitting photographs of Defendant possessing the firearms; (3) the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the convictions; (4) Defendant was precluding from raising an objection to an instruction given to the jury during trial regarding voluntary flight; and (5) Defendant was given lawful sentences within the statutory range, even though the sentences were contrary to the court's intentions. View "State v. Castillas" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with driving under the influence. Defendant unsuccessfully sought to suppress evidence of the traffic stop leading to his arrest, alleging that law enforcement did not have a reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop his vehicle. The court of appeals reversed, concluding (1) the traffic stop was based upon erroneous information contained in the records of the Nebraska Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), and therefore, the stop was unlawful; and (2) the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals erred in determining that the good faith exception did not apply. Remanded for consideration of Defendant's remaining assignments of error. View "State v. Bromm" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of driving under the influence (DUI), fourth offense. The district court determined that a conviction for driving while ability impaired (DWAI) in Colorado could be used to enhance Defendant's current DUI sentence and sentenced Defendant for three to five years' imprisonment. The court also revoked Defendant's license for fifteen years. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant's DWAI conviction in Colorado could not be used to enhance the penalty for a conviction of DUI in Nebraska. Remanded with directions to vacate Defendant's sentence and to resentence him. View "State v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

After Defendant pled no contest to third degree assault, the district court ordered Defendant to register under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for the district court to consider all the evidence in the record rather than just the factual basis for the plea in making its determination. On remand, the district court found by clear and convincing evidence that Defendant's crime involved sexual contact and ordered Defendant to register under SORA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding by clear and convincing evidence that Defendant's crime involved sexual contact and in ordering Defendant to register under SORA. View "State v. Norman" on Justia Law