Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Lancaster County in this case arising from a dispute between two counties over who should provide general assistance for an indigent individual, holding that the district court did not err.Michael Taul, an indigent individual, filed an application for general assistance. Lancaster County provided general assistance services for Taul until he was approved for Supplemental Security Income. Lancaster County later requested reimbursement from Custer County, which Custer County denied. Lancaster County then brought this lawsuit, alleging that Custer County, as Taul's county of legal settlement at the time he was provided general assistance by Lancaster County, had a duty to pay the costs of the general assistance provided to Taul. The district court granted summary judgment for Lancaster County. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court for Lancaster County had subject matter jurisdiction over Lancaster County's action for reimbursement; and (2) there was no plain error evident from the record. View "County of Lancaster v. County of Custer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing an action seeking to enjoin two members of a county board of commissioners from voting on an application for a conditional use permit (CUP), holding that the district court properly concluded that Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the action.Plaintiffs, opponents of the CUP application, filed a complaint seeking an injunction and alleging, among other things, that two members of the county board of commissioners had conflicts of interest and should be enjoined from considering or voting on the CUP application. The district court ruled that Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the action and dismissed the action. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the issuance of the CUP and that the district court properly dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Preserve the Sandhills v. Cherry County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the compensation court concluding that a claimant who sustains injuries along the same extremity sustains an injury to a single member for workers' compensation purposes, holding that the compensation court's decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-121(3).Claimant injured her right wrist and right elbow upon falling at work. Claimant filed a claim for benefits, asserting that the workers' compensation court should award her permanent disability benefits based on her loss of earning capacity. At issue was section 48-121(3), which provides for discretionary loss of earning capacity where there is a "loss or loss of use of more than one member of parts of more than one member[.]" The compensation court refused to consider an award based on the loss of earning capacity because "an injury to the wrist and the elbow of the same arm is still an injury to a single member and does not entitle an employee to a loss of earning power.” The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the compensation court erred in its interpretation of section 48-121(3). View "Espinoza v. Job Source USA, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing this complaint brought by Plaintiff, an inmate in the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services system, against the Department and several of its officials (collectively, DCS) under 42 U.S. 1983 and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) regarding Plaintiff's tentative release date, holding that there was no error.Plaintiff sued DCS under section 1983 and the APA, alleging that DCS violated both his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to have his "sentence determined consistent with the statutes and case law of Nebraska." DCS moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the entire was barred by claim preclusion. The district court agreed with DCS and dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in dismissing Plaintiff's action with prejudice; and (2) did not err in not granting Plaintiff leave to amend. View "Schaeffer v. Frakes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying the petition and application filed by the State of Nebraska, Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to vacate an arbitration award resulting from a labor dispute and confirming the award, holding that the district court did not err.On appeal, DHHS argued that the arbitrator exceeded his powers under DHHS' labor contract the Nebraska Association of Public Employees, Local #61 of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees and that the district court erred in finding that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) whatever insufficiency existed in the findings of fact and conclusions of law, DHHS was instrumental in bringing about that insufficiency; and (2) the district court did not err by finding that the arbitrator did not add to or modify the labor contract and concluding that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers. View "State v. Neb. Ass'n of Public Employees" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court that affirmed the decision of the Nebraska State Personnel Board upholding the termination of Scott Mollring's employment as a teacher for the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, holding that there was no error.On appeal, Mollring argued that the district court erroneously determined that because he had not completed two calendar years of employment at the time of his dismissal, he was a probationary employee who could be terminated without cause. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in concluding that "two years" under Neb. Rev. Stat. 79-845 means two calendar years, and cause was not required; and (2) the court correctly determined that Mollring was still in the probationary period and that his employment could be terminated without cause. View "Mollring v. Neb. Dep't of Health & Human Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Respondents, the Board of Parole and one of its officers, and denying the writ of mandamus sought by Appellant, a committed offender serving an indeterminate sentence, holding that there was no error.Appellant sought a writ of mandamus compelling Respondents to disclose the record of an informal parole review proceeding during which Appellant was interviewed by two Board members who found that Appellant was not reasonably likely to be granted parole. The district court denied the writ, concluding that the record was part of the individual file deemed confidential under Neb. Rev. Stat. 83-1,125.01 and that the record fell within the investigatory records exception of Neb. Rev. Stat. 84-712.05(5). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below. View "Jacob v. Neb. Bd. of Parole" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court upholding the Tax Commissioner's conclusion that Taxpayers failed to prove that they abandoned their domicile in Florida, holding that competent evidence supported the district court's factual findings and that its decision conformed to the law.The audit period in this case covered the calendar-year tax years from 2010 to 2014. Taxpayers, who filed income tax returns as married filing jointly, filed Nebraska income tax returns claiming status as nonresidents of Nebraska. The Department sent Taxpayers notices of proposed deficiency determinations for each tax year of the audit period, and the Commissioner denied Taxpayers' petitions for redetermination. The district court affirmed, determining that Taxpayers were residents of Nebraska during the audit period because they were domiciled in Nebraska in each of those years. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court's decision conformed to the law, was supported by competent evidence, and was neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable. View "Acklie v. Neb. Department of Revenue" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-217, holding that the petition did not state a cognizable ground for relief.Appellant pled no contest to attempted first degree sexual assault and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Appellant later filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that his conviction and sentence were void. The district court dismissed the action without prejudice pursuant to section 25-217. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court erred when it dismissed the habeas petition pursuant to section 25-217 because section 25-217 has no application to habeas corpus proceedings; and (2) upon de novo review, it was proper to dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus because none of the allegations in the petition set forth facts which, if true, would entitle Appellant to habeas relief. View "Childs v. Frakes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Tax Equalization and Review Commission (TERC) affirming the decision of the Lancaster County Board of Equalization affirming the valuations of the agricultural land owned by Mary and Brad Moser for the tax year 2020 but reversing the County Board's decisions for the 2018 and 2019 tax years, holding that TERC erred.For the tax years 2018 and 2019, TERC reduced the value of the Mosers' irrigated acres to equalize those acres with a nearby parcel of agricultural property. The Supreme Court (1) reversed TERC's decision to the extent it ordered that irrigated cropland on certain property be valued as drylands cropland for the 2018 and 2019 tax years, holding that TERC's conclusions as to this property was factually incorrect, was not supported by competent evidence, failed to conform to the law, and was unreasonable; and (2) otherwise affirmed, holding that there was no error was to the 2020 tax year valuation. View "Lancaster County Bd. of Equalization v. Moser" on Justia Law