Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellee, an LLC, sought a refund from Kearney County of a portion of its 2006 personal property taxes, alleging the taxes were paid as the result of an honest mistake or misunderstanding. The County Board of Supervisors denied the refund. The district court sustained Appellee's petition in error and ordered the County to refund $480,411 to Appellee pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 77-1734.01, concluding that Appellee had paid the taxes as the result of an honest mistake or misunderstanding. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because Appellee paid the 2006 personal property taxes based upon a mistake of law, section 77-1734.01 afforded it no relief, and therefore, the district court erred in determining that Appellee was entitled to a refund. View "Kaapa Ethanol, LLC v. Kearney County Bd. of Supervisors" on Justia Law

Appellant owned a convention center. In the 2009 and 2010 tax years, the conference center was valued by the Sarpy County assessor at $23,400,000. Appellant protested that valuation to the Sarpy County Board of Equalization, which denied the request. The Tax Equalization and Review Commission (TERC) denied Appellant's appeal and valued the conference center at the amount previously valued by the county assessor. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that TERC did not err in affirming the valuation of the property because Appellant failed to meet its burden of showing that the county's valuation was unreasonable and arbitrary, and therefore, TERC's decision was lawful, was supported by competent evidence, and was not arbitrary or capricious. View "JQH La Vista Conference Ctr. Dev. LLC v. Sarpy County Bd. of Equalization" on Justia Law

Law Firm represented Employee in a workers' compensation action against Employee's Employer. After a trial, Employee was awarded compensation, including medical expenses incurred by Employee with Medical Clinic. Employer paid sums owed to Medical Clinic pursuant to the award. Law Firm subsequently filed a complaint against Medical Clinic, seeking attorney fees under the common fund doctrine. Following a hearing, the district court dismissed Law Firm's complaint, concluding that Law Firm was not permitted to recover attorney fees from Medical Clinic under the doctrine. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the plain language of Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-125(2)(a) prohibits the charging of attorney fees against medical providers in workers' compensation court; and (2) the common fund doctrine may not be applied in this case to allow Law Firm a fee from Medical Clinic from the district court when it would not be entitled to such a fee from the workers' compensation court. View "Walentine, O'Toole, McQuillan & Gordon, LLP v. Midwest Neurosurgery, PC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a passenger in a car that a law enforcement officer was pursuing when the driver lost control of the car, and the car flipped over. Plaintiff sued County for injuries he sustained during the vehicular pursuit pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 13-911, which authorizes compensation for damages to an "innocent third party" who is injured by such a pursuit. The district court held in favor of Plaintiff and awarded damages to Plaintiff. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the district court did not err in (1) the majority of its evidentiary rulings, and although the court erred in admitting hearsay testimony, the error was harmless; (2) finding that Plaintiff was an "innocent third party"; and (3) calculating County's liability under the relevant statutes. View "Werner v. County of Platte" on Justia Law

Appellant filed a grievance alleging that Lancaster County denied him an opportunity to fairly compete for job vacancies because County officials did not follow the County's personnel rules. There were two vacancies at issue. The first was a vacancy at the County's mental health center, for which the County reassigned one of its employees to that position without conducting competitive examinations. The second vacancy was a ground maintenance position left open after the County reassigned the first employee to the mental health center. The district court held (1) regarding the first vacancy, a department head's decision to place a current department employee in a newly created vacancy was not an appointment subject to competitive examinations; (2) regarding the second vacancy, the County properly promoted a department employee to the vacancy even though the department did not consider the applicants' seniority; and (3) Appellant's claim was moot because he no longer worked for the County. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Appellant's claim was not moot; (2) the County failed to comply with statutory requirements and its own personnel rules in assigning department employees to the mental health center and the ground maintenance vacancies, and the assignments were therefore invalid. View "Blakely v. Lancaster County" on Justia Law

After her Father's death, Mother underwent intrauterine insemination using Father's cryopreserved sperm. The procedure was successful, and Mother gave birth to a child. Mother subsequently applied to the Social Security Administration (SSA) for surviving child's insurance benefits on behalf of the child. SSA denied the application. An ALJ decided that the child was entitled to child's insurance benefits on Father's Social Security record. SSA's appeal council reversed. On appeal, the U.S. district court certified the following question to the Nebraska Supreme Court: "Can a child, conceived after her biological father's death through intrauterine insemination using his sperm, and born within nine months of his death, inherit from him as the surviving issue under Nebraska intestacy law?" The Supreme Court answered in the negative, holding that under the relevant Nebraska statutes, a child conceived after her biological father's death cannot inherit from her father as surviving issue for purposes of intestacy. View "Amen v. Asture" on Justia Law

An hourly employee who worked part-time while attending college sustained a work-related injury. At issue before the Supreme Court was how to calculate the employee's average weekly wage in order to determine the appropriate vocational rehabilitation priority - using his part-time wages, as the employer contended, or wages calculated using a forty-hour workweek, as the court below ruled. The Supreme Court affirmed the award of the compensation court, holding that under the circumstances of this case, a vocational rehabilitation plan seeking an average weekly wage based on a forty-hour week - the calculation used for purposes of permanent disability - best restored the employee to suitable employment. View "Becerra v. UPS" on Justia Law

Kelly and Paul Rosberg challenged the results of elections for seats on the Public Service Commission (PSC). The Rosbergs lost in the primaries to Gerald Vap and Rod Johnson, respectively. After the general election, the Rosbergs filed suit in the district court, claiming that Vap and Johnson were ineligible for the seats because both Vap and Johnson were not "in good standing" with their professions and were therefore ineligible for the seats. The district court rejected the Rosbergs' claims and granted summary judgment to Vap and Johnson. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the Legislature did not intend service on the PSC to be read as a profession for which one must be "in good standing according to the established standards of" that profession, the district court was correct in dismissing the Rosbergs' challenges. View "Rosberg v. Vap" on Justia Law

The Lincoln County Board of Equalization (Board) determined that Midwest Renewable Energy, LLC (Midwest) failed to timely file its 2009 personal property tax return and was therefore subject to a penalty. Midwest appealed this determination to the Tax Equalization and Review Commission (TERC), which affirmed. Midwest then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which also affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that TERC erred in affirming the assessment of the penalty, as (1) the Board applied the wrong law when it decided Midwest's appeal; and (2) TERC erred on the record when it failed to analyze the effects of the Board's error and when it failed to recognize that the record before it contained evidence not presented to the Board. Remanded with directions to TERC to determine whether the return was timely mailed and filed. View "Midwest Renewable Energy, LLC v. Bd. of Equalization" on Justia Law

In these consolidated appeals, the Commission of Industrial Relations (CIR) determined that Douglas County committed a prohibited labor practice when it increased union members' monthly health insurance premiums without negotiating. The County appealed, contending that the parties' collective bargaining agreement authorized its unilateral action and that its action did not change the status quo. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed (i) the CIR's determination that the County committed a prohibited labor practice in failing to negotiate health insurance premium increases; and (ii) the CIR's decision not to award attorney fees; but (2) reversed and vacated those portions of the CIR's orders requiring the County to reimburse union members for increased insurance premiums deducted from their wages, plus interest. View "Employees United Labor Ass'n v. Douglas County" on Justia Law