Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Dwight Trumble owned property in Sarpy County and paid two levies for the support of school districts in the Learning Community of Douglas and Sarpy Counties (Learning Community). Trumble subsequently brought suit under Neb. Rev. Stat. 77-1735 against the school districts in the Learning Community, claiming the levies were unconstitutional. The district court determined it did not have jurisdiction and dismissed the case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a suit to recover unconstitutional taxes cannot be brought under section 77-1735; (2) Trumble filed suit outside the tax year in which the challenged taxes were levied or assessed, so the district court did not have jurisdiction under Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-21,149; and (3) since the district court lacked jurisdiction, it properly dismissed the action. View "Trumble v. Sarpy County Board" on Justia Law

The Douglas County attorney filed a petition with the Mental Health Board alleging that S.J. was a dangerous sex offender within the meaning of Nebraska's Sex Offender Commitment Act (SOCA). The Board concluded that S.J. was a dangerous sex offender. The Board then held a hearing in which it concluded that inpatient treatment at Norfolk Regional Center was the least restrictive alternative presently available and ordered inpatient commitment. S.J. appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) clear and convincing evidence supported the district court's findings that S.J. was substantially unable to control his behavior; (2) clear and convincing evidence supported the court's finding that inpatient treatment was the least restrictive alternative; and (3) SOCA's provision regarding the composition of the Board was consistent with due process requirements. View "In re S.J." on Justia Law

Big John's Billiards filed this action against the State and others seeking a declaration that the Nebraska Clean Indoor Air Act was special legislation, violated Nebraska's equal protection clause, and constituted a regulatory taking. The district court sustained in part and in part overruled Big John's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of special legislation but did not direct entry of a final judgment or dismiss Big John's other constitutional claims. The State appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that because the district court did not enter a final order, the Court did not have appellate jurisdiction over the appeal. View "Big John's Billards v. State" on Justia Law

Because of Defendant Oscar Hernandez's third conviction for driving under the influence, the Nebraska Department of Motor Vehicles revoked his license. Defendant received an ignition interlock permit from the Department. Before the revocation expired, Defendant was involved in an accident while driving a vehicle that did not have an ignition interlock device. The State charged Defendant with driving during revocation under Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-6,197.06. The district court concluded that section 60-6,197.06 did not apply to Defendant's conduct and that Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-6,211.05(5) did. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court, holding (1) section 60-6,197.06 does not provide the penalty for a driver who has a valid ignition interlock permit but operates a vehicle not equipped with such a device; and (2) rather, that conduct is a Class II misdemeanor under section 60-6,211.05(5). View "State v. Hernandez" on Justia Law

Servio Diaz, a Honduran disaster refugee with authorization to reside in the U.S., pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to misdemeanor charges of attempted possession of a controlled substance, cocaine, and driving while intoxicated. Diaz subsequently filed a motion for a writ of error coram nobis, seeking relief on the basis that his counsel was ineffective when counsel failed to advise Diaz of potential deportation consequences he would face when he entered his guilty plea. The district court determined that Diaz had not established entitlement to relief and denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed but on different grounds, concluding that the error asserted by Diaz was not an appropriate basis for relief by a writ of error coram nobis. View "State v. Diaz" on Justia Law

Appellees, three Nebraska non-profit organizations and a resident taxpayer, brought an action against the Nebraska Liquor Control Commission and its director, seeking a declaration that the Commissioner's regulations were illegal and void because the Commission had exceeded its authority under the Nebraska Liquor Control Act by classifying flavored malt beverages as beer rather than spirits, which were taxed at a much higher rate under the Act. The district court concluded (1) Appellees had standing to challenge the Commission's regulation, and (2) the flavored malt beverages were spirits under the Act. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court correctly concluded that the taxpayer had taxpayer standing to assert this claim, and therefore, it was unnecessary for the Court to consider whether the nonprofits also had standing; and (2) the Commission exceeded its statutory authority by classifying and taxing flavored malt beverages as beer, as the Act unambiguously required flavored malt beverages to be classified as spirits. View "Project Extra Mile v. Neb. Liquor Control Comm'n" on Justia Law

A jury convicted LeRoy Parmar of first degree murder for the 1987 killing of Frederick Cox, and the trial court sentenced him to a term of life imprisonment. In 2005, Parmar moved to have the DNA testing performed on evidence used at trial. The laboratory's analysis of the DNA samples from Cox's bedsheet excluded Parmar as a contributor to the DNA found in those samples. Parmar subsequently filed a motion requesting the court to vacate his conviction or grant him a new trial. The district court overruled Parmar's motion, concluding (1) Parmar was not entitled to have his conviction vacated because the DNA testing did not conclusively establish his innocence; and (2) Parmar was not entitled to a new trial because the evidence would not have produced a substantially different result. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the DNA evidence did not exonerate Parmar of guilt, but the evidence excluded Parmar's DNA from a crucial piece of evidence and contradicted the eyewitness testimony crucial to the State's conviction; and (2) thus, the DNA evidence probably would have produced a substantially different result if it had been available at trial. Remanded with direction to grant Parmar a new trial. View "State v. Parmar" on Justia Law

S.C. was convicted of sexual assault of a child. The mental health board subsequently found S.C. to be a dangerous sex offender under the Sex Offender Commitment Act (SOCA) and ordered him to undergo secure inpatient treatment. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) S.C.'s due process rights were not violated when the State did not allow him to undergo sex offender treatment while still incarcerated, as obtaining treatment was not necessary to affect S.C.'s release from prison, no statutory language existed to create a substantive right to treatment, and SOCA was civil and nonpunitive in nature; and (2) The State presented clear and convincing evidence that S.C. was a dangerous sex offender and that secure inpatient treatment was the least restrictive alternative. View "In re Interest of S.C." on Justia Law

Marco Torres was convicted by jury of two counts of first degree murder, one count of robbery, three counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and one count of unauthorized use of a financial transaction device. Torres was sentenced to death on each count of murder. The Supreme Court affirmed Torres' conviction and death sentence, holding (1) the district court (i) did not err in making certain evidentiary rulings, and where it did err in admitting certain evidence, the error was harmless, and (ii) did not err in overruling Torres' motion to suppress; and (2) the sentencing panel, among other things, (i) did not err by receiving for purposes of the State's proof of aggravating circumstances the trial court's bill of exceptions over Torres' objections, (ii) did not err in finding certain statutes challenged by Torres to be constitutional, (iii) incorrectly considered the mental suffering of one of Torres' victims in determining whether an aggravating circumstance was in existence, but the failure of this one finding did not affect the existence of the aggravator, and (iv) did not err in concluding that no statutory or nonstatutory mitigating factors existed. View "State v. Torres" on Justia Law

In 2010, the Learning Community of Douglas and Sarpy Counties established a common levy for the general fund budgets of its eleven member school districts. After Sarpy County levied this tax on real property, three taxpayers brought an action in the district court seeking a declaration that the tax was unconstitutional. The Learning Community, each of its member school districts, and the Sarpy County treasurer were named defendants in the action. The district court declared the Learning Community's common levy was unconstitutional as a property tax for state purposes. The Learning Community and two of its member school districts appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Neb. Rev. Stat. 77-34442(2)(b), which provides that a learning community may establish a levy for general fund budgets of its member school districts, serves a predominantly local purpose, not a state purpose; and (2) because all members of the learning community received benefits from taxes levied and the levy was uniform throughout the community, there was no violation of either the Nebraska Constitution's prohibition of commutation or the uniformity clause. Remanded with directions to dismiss. View "Sarpy County Farm Bureau v. Learning Cmty. of Douglas & Sarpy Counties" on Justia Law