Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted by a jury of first degree sexual assault and felony child abuse. At issue on appeal was the admission of evidence of Defendant's prior sexual contacts with minors, which Defendant claimed violated Nebraska rules of evidence and the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the state and federal Constitutions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in finding that Neb. Rev. Stat. 27-414 does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the federal and state Constitutions; and (2) the trial court did not err in admitting the evidence of prior acts. View "State v. Kibbee" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of attempted first degree murder, use of a weapon to commit a felony, criminal conspiracy, and tampering with a witness. On appeal, the Supreme Court first rejected Defendant's claim that the district court was divested of jurisdiction when Defendant filed a petition for writ of certiorari part way through the proceedings. The Court then reversed Defendant's convictions and remanded the cause for a new trial, holding (1) the district court erred when it gave the jury a written instruction stating that the jury must consider Defendant's refusal to testify as an admission of guilt, and (2) the error was not harmless. View "State v. Abram" on Justia Law

The State of Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission issued an advisory opinion answering the question of whether Omaha firefighters can engage in a campaign to raise funds for the Muscular Dystrophy Association (MDA) during on-duty time paid for with taxpayer funds or using city-owned uniforms and equipment. The Commission stated that such activities violated the Nebraska Political Accountability and Disclosure Act (NPADA). Appellants, the Nebraska Professional Firefighters Association, its president, and the MDA, filed an action against the Commission, asking the district court to declare the advisory opinion invalid. The district court dismissed the case, determining that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review a Commission advisory opinion. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and the court of appeals correctly dismissed the appeal. View "Engler v. State" on Justia Law

This case involved a civil administrative operator's license revocation for refusal to submit to a chemical test. The Department of Motor Vehicles revoked the operator's license of Ronald Sherman for one year, and the district court affirmed. The court of appeals reversed, determining that the sworn report in this case failed to confer jurisdiction on the Department because it did not sufficiently establish that Sherman was on a public road or private property open to public access at the time of his arrest. Prior to oral argument before the Supreme Court, Sherman died. The Court reversed, holding that because this license revocation proceeding involved a right that was purely personal to Sherman, the action abated on Sherman's death, and there was no longer a party with an interest in the resolution of the appeal. Remanded with instructions for the district court to vacate its order. View "Sherman v. Neth" on Justia Law

The East Butler and Prague public school districts filed a petition for dissolution and merger with the Committee for the Reorganization of School Districts. Afterwards, Appellees, property owners, filed freeholder petitions with the Saunders County Freeholder Board to remove property owned by them from the Prague District into the Wahoo District. The Committee then approved the dissolution of merger. Before it became effective, the Board granted Appellees' petitions to move their property. East Butler subsequently appealed, alleging that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the Committee had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter or that the Committee had prior jurisdiction to act. The district court dismissed the appeal, concluding that under Neb. Rev. Stat. 79-458(5) the appeal was untimely and that East Butler lacked standing to challenge the Board's order. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because East Butler had a valid merger petition that involved the same property pending at the time of Appellees' freeholder petitions, it had sufficient interest in the matter to invoke the court's jurisdiction; and (2) the appeal was timely. Remanded. View "Butler County Sch. Dist. v. Freeholder Petitioners" on Justia Law

Chad Sorensen was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), second offense, with a blood alcohol content over .15. Sorensen was sentenced to probation, and his license was revoked for one year. Sorenson appealed, contending that his confrontation rights were violated when the county court admitted into evidence the affidavit of the nurse who performed Sorensen's blood draw without also requiring that nurse to testify at trial. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed Sorensen's convictions, holding that Sorensen's right to confrontation was violated when the State was not required to call the nurse as a witness at trial. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Sorensen" on Justia Law

Appellants in this case operated restaurants in the City of Omaha subject to a municipal ordinance which became effective on October 1, 2010. The ordinance declared itself to be an "occupation tax" on restaurants and drinking places in the City in the amount of 2.5 percent of gross receipts. Appellants filed an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against the City, asking the district court to declare the ordinance unconstitutional, invalid, illegal, and unenforceable. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because the legal incidence of the tax fell on the business and not the customer, the restaurant tax was an occupation tax, not an illegal sales tax; (2) the ordinance did not violate limitations in the Nebraska Liquor Control Act on the amount of occupation tax for liquor licensees; and (3) the ordinance did not violate the constitutional prohibition against special legislation. View "Anthony Inc. v. City of Omaha" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was whether an alleged victim of child sexual abuse may claim a privilege against testifying in the criminal prosecution of the alleged perpetrator pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-1210, which provides, "When the matter sought to be elicited would tend to render the witness criminally liable or to expose him or her to public ignominy, the witness is not compelled to answer...." The district court found the privilege against exposure to public ignominy did not apply to the victim because her testimony was highly material to the crimes charged. The victim appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed on different grounds after noting that section 25-1210 does not include a materiality exception, holding that public ignominy privilege cannot be asserted by a witness in a criminal case, regardless of the materiality of the testimony. View "State v. Riensche" on Justia Law

Thunder Collins was tried and convicted for numerous crimes, including first degree murder. On Collins' first appeal, the Supreme Court remanded the cause for a hearing to determine whether Collins was prejudiced by the jury's weekend separation during its deliberation. At that hearing, Collins moved for the judge's recusal and to conduct discovery. Both motions were denied. Following the hearing, the district court determined that Collins suffered no prejudice from the jury's separation and overruled his motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed Collins' convictions and sentences, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Collins' motions. View "State v. Collins" on Justia Law

Jamin Stoddard and Brian Shipley were injured in a collision with a train owned by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) at a grade crossing in Cass County. Stoddard's guardians and Shipley brought actions against the Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR) and Cass County under the State Tort Claims Act (STCA) and the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (PSTCA), alleging that the governmental entities negligently designed the grade crossing and negligently failed to install various warning devices. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the State and the County. At issue on appeal was whether the negligence claims fell within the discretionary function exceptions to the limited waiver of sovereign immunity under the PSTCA and the STCA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that all of the claims which were the subject of these appeals fell within the discretionary function exceptions of the PSTCA and the STCA. View "Shipley v. Dep't of Roads" on Justia Law