Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After D.I. was convicted of sexual assault of a child and was adjudged to be a dangerous sex offender, D.I. was committed to secure inpatient treatment. Three years later, D.I. filed a motion for reconsideration before the mental health board, alleging that cause no longer existed to keep him in secure inpatient treatment. The mental health board denied D.I.'s motion for reconsideration, and the district court affirmed. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because the denial of a motion for reconsideration is a final, appealable order under Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-1902, the Court had jurisdiction to address D.I.'s claims; (2) the mental health board did not err when it found D.I. was still a dangerous sex offender; and (3) the mental health board did not err when it determined there was no less restrictive treatment alternative. View "In re Interest of D.I." on Justia Law

Appellants, four natural resources districts ("NRDs"), appealed the Department's 2009 order finding that in 2008, the basin was fully appropriated. Michael Jacobson, a landowner in the basin, cross-appealed. As a threshold matter, the supreme court found the NRDs had standing to challenge the Department's determination, but Jacobson lacked standing because he failed to allege actual or imminent harm. The court then reversed and vacated the Department's order, holding it to be arbitrary and invalid because (1) the Department failed to conform to its own regulations when it determined the basin was fully appropriated and failed to apply its methodologies in a consistent manner, resulting in a designation that was arbitrary and capricious; and (2) the Department failed to plainly describe its methodologies so that they could be replicated and assessed in compliance with Neb. Rev. Stat. 46-713(1)(d). View "Middle Niobrara Natural Resources Dept. v. Dept. of Natural Resources" on Justia Law

The Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHSS) determined that Darline Liddell-Toney was required to participate in a self-sufficiency program in order to receive benefits under the Welfare Reform Act, despite her documented disability. The district court affirmed the DHSSâ determination. Ms. Liddell-Toney appealed, arguing that the district court erred in finding that the DHSS provided sufficient evidence to prove she was not entitled to an exemption from participating in the program. The Supreme Court found that the evidence clearly indicated that Ms. Liddell-Toney was prevented from working for a substantial period due to her disability. The Court held that the district court erred when it affirmed DHSSâs determination that Ms. Liddell-Toney did not qualify for an exemption from participating in the self-sufficiency program. The Court reversed the judgment of the district court, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

L.G. Barcus & Sons, Inc. (Barcus) was held liable to the Village of Hallam under the state One-Call Notification System Act (Act) for damage to Hallamâs sanitary sewer system. The Act established a one-call notification center so that excavators can learn of any underground facilities in the area where excavation is planned. The general contractor in this case complied with the Act. Acting under its contractorâs compliance, Barcus excavated on a private landownerâs property that ultimately ruptured Hallamâs sewer lines. Among the issues Barcus raised on appeal is whether the excavator can delegate its duties under the Act to another party to escape liability. The Supreme Court found that Barcus could not rely on anotherâs compliance to excuse its own noncompliance. The Court affirmed the judgment of the district court.