Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Upon the dissolution of the parties' marriage, the district court entered an order requiring Husband to pay Wife temporary alimony. While Husband's appeal was pending, Wife filed a motion asking the district court to award her temporary alimony pending the appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the district court filed an order awarding Wife temporary alimony. The district court later found Husband to be in contempt for failing to pay temporary alimony and for failing to appear at the contempt hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court had jurisdiction to order Husband to pay temporary alimony when the appeal of the decree of dissolution was pending, and therefore the order was not void, and (2) Husband was subject to contempt for violating the order to pay temporary alimony. View "Spady v. Spady" on Justia Law

After an amended petition was filed in the juvenile court alleging the Candice H., a juvenile, had possessed marijuana and drug paraphernalia, the juvenile court placed Candice under the supervision of a probation officer for an open-ended period of time. The next year, the juvenile court ordered that its jurisdiction should be terminated because Candice had reached the age of majority. The court also ordered that the record be sealed. The State appealed, contending that the juvenile court erred in ordering that the record be sealed without giving prior notice to the county attorney and without determining that Candice had satisfactorily completed her probation. The Supreme Court vacated the order sealing Candice's juvenile record, holding that the juvenile court erred in ordering that the record be sealed because (1) the order did not include a finding that Candice had satisfactorily completed her probation, and (2) the county attorney was not given the required notice of the proceeding to seal the record. View "In re Candice H." on Justia Law

On October 7, the State filed an amended information in Butler County charging Appellant with one count of attempted first degree sexual assault and one count of second-offense violation of a protection order. Appellant was convicted of both offenses. On September 4, an information filed in Platte County charged Appellant with attempted first degree sexual assault. Appellant pled guilty. Appellant subsequently sought habeas corpus relief challenging the Butler County convictions, alleging (1) he was being illegally detained because the amended information was fatally defective, (2) his counsel in the Butler County case was ineffective, and (3) he was innocent of the charges. The district court denied the habeas corpus petition and Appellant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Appellant's application to proceed in forma pauperis on the ground that the legal positions asserted in the petition for writ of habeas corpus which he sought to file were frivolous. View "Peterson v. Houston" on Justia Law

Mother's two Indian children, both minors, were placed in foster care by a separate juvenile court. After the State filed a motion to terminate parental rights, the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska sought to transfer the proceedings to the Omaha Tribal Court pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act and the Nebraska Indian Child Welfare Act. The juvenile court denied the request, finding that the motions were filed at an "advanced stage" of the juvenile proceedings. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that there was no basis for a determination that the motions to transfer these cases to tribal court were filed at an advanced stage of the proceedings to terminate parental rights, and therefore, the court of appeals erred in affirming the separate juvenile court's denial of the motions on this ground. Remanded with directions to sustain the motions to transfer the cases to the Omaha Tribal Court. View "In re Zylena R." on Justia Law

On October 22, 2010, an amended petition was filed in juvenile court alleging improper care of two minor children. After twice continuing the permanency planning hearing because opposing counsel objected to reports offered by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the juvenile court held a third attempt at a review and permanency hearing on January 9, 2012. The court again sustained opposing counsel's objection to DHHS' reports because they were offered without notice. In its order, the juvenile court ordered DHHS to pay opposing counsel's costs associated with the preparation and attendance of the January 9 hearing as well as the next scheduled hearing. The Supreme Court vacated the January 9, 2012 contempt order and remanded, holding (1) the juvenile court's inherent power to issue contempt orders is subject to the contemnor's receiving proper notice and an opportunity to be heard when the contempt is not committed in the presence of the court; and (2) in this instance, the juvenile court abused its discretion by summarily imposing a sanction for conduct that did not occur in its presence. View "In re Samantha L." on Justia Law

Bank sued five guarantors (Guarantors) following defaults on the underlying notes. During discovery, Bank tendered requests for admissions to each of Guarantors, including a request to admit the specific amount due on the note for principal, accrued interest, and a prepayment fee. Ultimately, the district court (1) entered judgment in favor of the Bank with respect to the principal and accrued interest due from Guarantors, but (2) based in part on Guarantors' answers to the requests for admissions, determined Bank was not entitled to prepayment fees. The Supreme Court reversed the rulings in each case on the prepayment fee issue, holding that the district court erred when it treated the Guarantors' answers to Bank's requests for admissions as denials rather than admissions that Guarantors owed prepayment fees. Remanded. View "U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Peterson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff corporation and two of its officers brought suit against Defendant, a brokerage firm, to recover damages that allegedly resulted when the president of the corporation independently engaged the brokerage firm's services to locate and lease new office space while the corporation was still liable under a previous lease, which it later breached. Plaintiff sued under theories of inducement, tortious interference, and negligence. The district court concluded that the brokerage company was not liable to Plaintiff for assisting the president to enter into a new lease while knowing that the corporation remained liable under a previous lease. The Supreme Court affirmed, either not reaching Appellants' assignments of error or finding them to be without merit. View "Pro. Mgmt. Midwest, Inc. v. Lund Co." on Justia Law

This dispute arose from a contractual relationship between Appellant, a provider of audio, Web, and video conferencing services, and Appellee, a corporation engaged in the sale of business software. After Appellee failed to pay for certain services Appellant provided pursuant to a contract, Appellant sued Appellee, asserting breach of contract. Appellee asserted affirmative defenses and a counterclaim to recover what it claimed to be overpayments. The district court granted Appellant's motion with respect to its claim for unpaid invoices but ruled in favor of Appellee on its counterclaim that it was fraudulently induced by Appellant to enter into the original service agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) not finding as a matter of law that Appellee failed to prove that Appellant misrepresented a fact that Appellee relied upon; (2) allowing Appellee to amend its counterclaim to allege material misrepresentation; (3) instructing the jury; and (4) overruling Appellant's motion for new trial or motion to alter or amend the judgment. View "Intercall Inc. v. Engenera, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to second degree murder and was sentenced to forty years to life in prison. The conviction was summarily affirmed. After his first petition for postconviction relief was denied, Defendant filed a pro se second verified motion for postconviction relief and request for an evidentiary hearing, asserting that he was denied his constitutional rights to a fair trial, to due process of law, and to effective assistance of counsel. More specifically, Defendant argued his constitutional rights were violated because trial counsel advised Defendant not to alert the court concerning his mental health history and failed to inform the court that Defendant was on a mind-altering medication. The district court dismissed Defendant's motion without an evidentiary hearing. Defendant appealed the dismissal of his competency issues without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Defendant did not allege that the competency-related issues he raised in his second motion for postconviction relief were not available previously or could not have been raised either on direct appeal or in his first postconviction proceeding, his claims were procedurally barred. View "State v. Watkins" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for second degree assault, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and unlawful membership recruitment into an organization or association in violation of Neb. Reb. Stat. 28-1351. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed Defendant's convictions, holding that the district court did not err with respect to numerous evidentiary and other trial rulings and when it rejected Defendant's constitutional challenges to section 28-1351; but (2) vacated Defendant's sentences, holding that the sentencing court plainly erred in ordering the sentence for use of a deadly weapon to be served concurrently with the sentence for unlawful recruitment. Remanded for resentencing so that the sentence for use of a deadly weapon is ordered to run consecutively to the other sentences imposed. View "State v. Scott" on Justia Law