Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the district court establishing paternity of twin children in Apurba Chatterjee and ordering joint legal and physical custody of the children, holding that Apurba lacked standing to seek a finding of paternity.Apurba brought this complaint seeking to establish paternity, custody, and support, alleging that Indraja Chatterjee, who was married to Indraneel Chatterjee, was pregnant with twins and that he was the biological father of the children. Apruba's motion for genetic testing of the children was granted, and results were returned indicating that there was a 99.9-percent statistical probability that Apurba was the children's biological father. The district court entered a decree finding that Apurba was the children's biological father and ordered joint legal and physical custody of the children. The Supreme Court vacated the order below, holding that Nebraska's paternity statutes do not allow for an alleged father to establish paternity over a child born to a married couple. View "Chatterjee v. Chatterjee" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court continuing an ex parte sexual assault protection order, holding that the sexual assault protection order was properly continued.Amanda F. was granted an ex parte sexual assault protection order against Daniel K. At the close of the evidence, the district court found that a statutory sexual assault offense had occurred, concluded that the risk of future harm was not a consideration under Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-311.11, the sexual assault protection order statute, and that the protection order should remain in effect for a period of one year. The Supreme Court affirmed the continuation of the sexual assault protection order, holding that Daniel did not carry his burden to show cause why the protection order should not remain in effect. View "Amanda F. v. Daniel K." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the county court finding that it was not in the best interest of the minor child at issue in this case to grant a petition to adopt the child (Child), whose parents died as the result of a murder-suicide, holding that there was no error.Child was five years old when her father killed her mother and then committed suicide. Thereafter, the Department of Health an Human Services (DHHS) took temporary protective custody of Child, who was adjudicated under Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-247(3)(a). The deceased couple's wills nominated Kelly, Child's biological maternal grandmother, as guardian for Child. Kelly filed a petition for guardianship of Child, after which Petitioners filed a petition for adoption. The county court denied the petition for adoption on the basis that it was not in Child's best interests to grant the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in its best interests analysis. View "In re Adoption of Faith F." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed as modified the decision of the district court continuing a harassment protection against Justina R. in favor of Diedra T. and Diedra's two minor children, holding that the order must be modified to exclude the children.Dustina, Diedra, and Diedra's husband had sexual relations. Diedra later filed a petition to obtain a harassment protection order against Justina on behalf of herself and her children, alleging that after Diedra had ended the sexual relationship Justina had harassed her. The district court ruled in Deidra's favor to the as to the harassment protection order. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to continue the harassment protection order in Diedra, and there was no violation of Justina's due process rights during the proceedings; and (2) the record showed insufficient evidence to warrant continuing the harassment protection order as to the children. View "Diedra T. v. Justina R." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court to enter an abuse protection order against Jamie P. in favor of her father, William P., following a hearing at which Jamie did not appear, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion in the issuance of the protection order against Jamie.William filed a petition asking police to remove Jamie from his home due to her domestic abuse. The district court entered an order to show cause. Jamie did not appear at the show cause hearing, and the district court entered a domestic abuse protection order against her. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Jamie was properly served with prior notice; and (2) because this Court lacked an adequate record, it was required to presume that the evidence supported the district court's decision to grant a protection order against Jamie. View "William P. v. Jamie P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding that a material change in circumstances had occurred sufficient to warrant modification of Appellee's alimony obligation, holding that there was no error.When the parties divorced, Appellee was earning $162,000 per year. Appellee was earning $200,000 per year when he was terminated. After the loss of his employment and the subsequent starting of his consulting firm, Appellee filed a motion for modification of his alimony obligation, also citing Appellant's increased income. The district court found a material change in circumstances and entered a new alimony schedule. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion. View "Mackiewicz v. Mackiewicz" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court granting Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint seeking dissolution of her marriage to Defendant, holding that the district court erred by dismissing this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.In his motion to dismiss, Defendant asserted that the parties were legally divorced in Venezuela, and therefore, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the dissolution action under Rule 12(b)(1) and lacked personal jurisdiction over Defendant under Rule 12(b)(2). The district court sustained the motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court erred in concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the dissolution action because the complaint's allegations sufficiently established the court's subject matter jurisdiction over the marital relationship; and (2) the district court erred to the extent it relied on its equitable estoppel findings to support dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Bleich v. Bleich" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the juvenile court granting a change of placement for Jordon B., holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.The juvenile court granted temporary custody of Jordon to Foster Parents based on concerns that Mother and Father were not able to care for him. After the court adjudicated Jordon to be a child within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-247(3)(a) the court approved a case plan with a primary permanency plan of reunification. Mother subsequently filed a motion for change of placement. Foster Parents filed a motion to intervene, as did Stepbrother, the adult stepbrother to Jordon. The court determined that Foster Parents and Stepbrother lacked standing to intervene. The court subsequently granted Mother's motion for a change of placement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Foster Parents did not have standing to appeal the placement order or the right to intervene as parties; and (2) because Stepbrother was not a "sibling" to Jordon, his request to intervene was properly denied. View "In re Jordon B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Plaintiff's tort action against the State of Nebraska, the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (DCS) and its director, and the Nebraska State Patrol (NSP), holding that the State had not waived its its sovereign immunity with respect to Plaintiff's claim.Plaintiff filed this negligence action alleging "Negligent Disclosure and Review of Sealed Records" alleging that NSP negligently disclosed Plaintiff's sealed criminal history records to DCS in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-3523. The district court dismissed the complaint, in its entirety, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff failed to allege a tort claim as that term is defined in the State Tort Claims Act (STCA), Neb. Rev. Stat. 81-8,209 to 81-8,235; and (2) therefore, the State did not waive its sovereign immunity with respect to Plaintiff's claim. View "Doe v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and in part reversed and remanded the judgment of the district court finding that Appellant was in contempt of court of orders contained in a divorce decree from Appellee, holding that the court erred in several respects.The district court found that for the tax years 2014 and 2019 Appellant willful violated the dependency tax exemption provisions of her marital dissolution decree and the order in modification. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the order finding Appellant in contempt for taking tax exemptions for the 2014 tax year but affirmed with respect to her filing for 2019, holding that Appellant was not in contempt of the decree when she took a dependency tax exemption for 2014; (2) vacated the award to Appellee for tax year 2014, holding that Appellee he was not harmed in 2014; (3) vacated the damages awarded to Appellee for a lost coronavirus relief payment for the 2019 tax year for lack of proof; and (4) reversed the award of attorney fees to Appellee. View "Yochum v. Yochum" on Justia Law