Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After an investigation by the Omaha Police Department's "cold case" homicide unit, Defendant was charged in 2010 with the 1978 murder of Carroll Bonnet. Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Defendant appealed, claiming (1) because approximately thirty-three years had passed since the murder, he was denied his right to confront witnesses and present a complete defense, as many of the alleged original witnesses were dead or unavailable; and (2) there was insufficient evidence to convict him, and the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during the questioning of a witness. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it overruled Defendant's motion to dismiss where the charges were brought thirty-three years after the commission of the crimes, as Defendant could not show the State intentionally waited to bring charges to gain an unfair tactical advantage, and therefore, Defendant could not show his due process rights were violated; (2) there was sufficient evidence to sustain the convictions; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Defendant's motion for mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct. View "State v. Watson" on Justia Law

On October 5, 2011, Defendant appeared in county court and pled guilty to four misdemeanors in three separate cases. When Defendant failed to appear for the scheduled sentencing in the cases, the county court issued a bench warrant for her arrest. Defendant was arrested on January 3, 2012 and was released on January 11, 2012. On April 4, 2012, Defendant was sentenced. Defendant appealed, claiming that the county court erred when it failed to give her credit for time previously served. The district court rejected Defendant's assertion, citing to State v. Heckman. The Supreme Court vacated the sentences, holding that Defendant was entitled to credit for time served from January 3 through 11. Remanded. View "State v. Bree" on Justia Law

On November 10, 2010, the State filed a petition in the juvenile court alleging that Appellant carried a concealed weapon on his person and possessed a "pistol, revolver or other form of short-barreled hand firearm." On October 12, 2011, Appellant filed a motion to discharge for failure to adjudicate within the time statutorily required. At the adjudication hearing on October 14, 2011, the juvenile court denied the motion to discharge. The hearing was then continued to December 22, 2011. On November 8, 2011, Appellant appealed the denial of his motion to discharge. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion in affirming the decision of the juvenile court; and (2) the court of appeals did not err in not addressing Appellant's constitutional speedy adjudication rights. View "In re Shaquille H." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sued the City of Columbus after raw sewage that Plaintiffs claimed was the result of a malfunction of the City-run sanitary sewage system flooded into Plaintiffs' home. The district court found in favor of the City on all theories of recovery, including inverse condemnation, negligence, nuisance, and trespass. Plaintiffs appealed the district court's rulings with respect to negligence and inverse condemnation. The court of appeals affirmed the district court with respect to negligence but reversed the court's finding in the City's favor with regard to inverse condemnation. The Supreme Court granted review of inverse condemnation issues and reversed, holding that Plaintiffs did not establish an inverse condemnation claim because Plaintiffs failed to show the City exercised its right of eminent domain. Remanded. View "Henderson v. City of Columbus" on Justia Law

During a lighthearted moment at work, a doctor used his hand to tap or strike the back of a nurse's neck. The nurse sued the doctor for battery, among other things, claiming that the contact caused serious injuries. After a jury trial, the district court entered judgment for the doctor. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in refusing to direct a verdict in the nurse's favor on the issue of battery or in submitting the issue to the jury that a battery occurred, as reasonable minds could conclude that the nurse consented to the contact by the doctor and that the contact did not cause the nurse's injuries. Because there was competent evidence presented to the jury upon which it could find for the doctor, the verdict was not clearly wrong. View "Wulf v. Kunnath" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, claiming that his trial and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance in several respects. Defendant's trial counsel was also his appellate counsel. The district court ruled that Defendant's counsel was not ineffective. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for postconviction relief, as Defendant failed to establish that he was prejudiced by his counsel's representation, and there was no merit to Defendant's assignments of error. View "State v. Robinson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the unlawful sale or purchase of a motor vehicle under Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-1416. Defendant was classified as a habitual criminal and sentenced to twelve to thirty years' imprisonment. The Supreme Court reversed ad remanded the cause for a new trial, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting "expert" testimony interpreting section 60-1416 because the testimony instructed the jury on how to make its decision of Defendant's guilt, and only the trial court should instruct the jury on the relevant law. In addition, the Court held that acting without a dealer's license under section 60-1416 is a public welfare offense, which doesn't require proof of mens rea. View "State v. Merchant" on Justia Law

Butler County Diary, LLC (BCD) requested a permit to install a liquid livestock manure pipeline under a public road. Read Township and Butler County cited two regulations it had adopted governing livestock confinement facilities in denying BCD's request. BCD challenged the regulations, alleging that the regulations were invalid and unenforceable. The district court ruled that the Township had the statutory authority to enact the regulations and that they were not preempted by the Livestock Waste Management Act or Nebraska's Department of Environmental Quality livestock waste control regulations. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Township had the statutory authority to enact the pertinent regulations and the regulations were not preempted by state statute or regulation. View "Butler County Dairy, LLC v. Butler County" on Justia Law

Tenant rented a house pursuant to a lease agreement with Landlord. Tenant later lease another of Landlord's properties pursuant to a lease agreement. For both properties, Landlord charged Tenant additional monthly "appliance fees" in excess of the stated rent amounts. Tenant brought this action against Landlord for noncompliance with the terms of her two lease agreements and for failure to return her security deposit. Landlord counterclaimed for damages. After a bench trial, judgment was entered in favor of Tenant. Tenant was represented by senior certified law students operating under the supervision of an attorney who was the director of the general civil practice clinic at Creighton University School of Law. Landlord argued that attorney fees could not be covered because Tenant's attorneys were working pro bono. The district court disagreed and awarded statutory fees. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in favor of Tenant but modified the designee of the attorney fee award, directing the district court to amend its order so as to award the attorney fees directly to the legal services provider. View "Black v. Brooks" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted and sentenced for the Class II felony offense of attempted kidnapping. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, claiming that his trial and appellate counsels were ineffective for failing to challenge the classification of the felony. At the time Defendant was sentenced, criminal attempt was a Class II felony when the crime attempted was a Class IA felony offense and was a Class III felony when the crime attempted was a Class II felony offense. The postconviction court denied Defendant's petition. The court of appeals reversed and remanded, finding that Defendant's counsel was ineffective for not challenging the classification at sentencing. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and affirmed the decision of the postconviction court, holding that Defendant failed to establish the trial and appellate counsel were ineffective in failing to raise at sentencing or on direct appeal that Defendant should have been sentenced for attempted kidnapping as a Class III felony. View "State v. Pittman" on Justia Law