Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs here were Bryan Behrens, Bryan Behrens Co., Inc., National Investments, Inc., and Thomas Stalnaker. Defendants were Christian Blunk, Berkshire and Blunk, and Abrahams Kaslow & Cassman LLP. In 2008, the SEC filed a civil enforcement action against all plaintiffs except Stalnaker. In 2009, the federal government indicted Behrens on charges of securities fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. Prior to the filing of the indictment, Plaintiffs filed their complaint alleging that Blunk had committed legal malpractice. Plaintiffs also sued Blunk's former partnership and the firm that later employed Blunk. Both civil and criminal cases were proceeding at roughly the same time. In 2010, Behrens pled guilty to securities fraud. Later that year, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against Defendants for legal malpractice. The district court found the action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations and by the doctrine of in pari delicto. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs' suit was barred by the two-year statute of limitations set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-222. View "Behrens v. Blunk" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. The Supreme Court affirmed. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for postconviction relief, claiming that the State violated his due process rights by presenting fabricated evidence during his trial, and alleging several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the following two claims required an evidentiary hearing: (1) that the State presented fabricated forensic evidence at Defendant's trial; and (2) that Defendant's trial counsel had a conflict of interest because of his relationship with the officer accused of fabricating evidence. View "State v. Edwards" 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

The district court gave a pro se inmate notice of the court's intent to dismiss the inmate's marital dissolution proceeding but identified two ways of avoiding dismissal. The inmate timely performed one of the court's specified actions. Despite this compliance and without explanation, the court dismissed the inmate's complaint. The court of appeals affirmed, reasoning that because the prison previously had denied the inmate transportation and telephone access to the court, the inmate would be unable to attend any hearing no matter how many motions he made. The Supreme Court reversed where (1) the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the inmate's complaint without explanation even though the inmate did what the court instructed, and (2) the court of appeals erred in basing its decision on predictions of future events. Remanded. View "Jones v. Jones" on Justia Law

This was an action for partition of the real property in the estate of Ronald McKillip. At the time of his death, McKillip owned four tracts of land. McKillip's will left the property to his three daughters, "share and share alike." The probate court confirmed ownership of the real estate to the daughters in equal shares. One daughter brought an action to partition the real estate. A referee appointed by the county court determined that a partition in kind of the real estate was not possible and recommended a public sale. The court approved the report and concluded that the real estate could not be partitioned in kind "without great prejudice to the owners." The court ordered the referee to sell the real estate, and the personal representative appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the real estate should be partitioned in kind. Remanded with directions. View "In re Estate of McKillip" on Justia Law

Erick M., a juvenile, requested that the juvenile court enter an order finding that under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)(J), he was eligible for "special immigrant juvenile" (SIJ) status. SIJ status allows a juvenile immigrant to remain in the United States and seek lawful permanent resident status if federal authorities conclude that the statutory conditions are met. The conditions include a court order determining that the juvenile's reunification with "1 or both" parents is not feasible because of abuse, neglect, or abandonment. The juvenile court found Erick did not satisfy that requirement. At issue on appeal was the meaning of the phrase "1 or both" parents. Erick lived only with his mother when the juvenile court adjudicated him as a dependent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) when ruling on a petitioner's motion for an eligibility order under section 1101(a)(27)(J), a court should generally consider whether reunification with either parent is feasible; and (2) therefore, the juvenile court did no err in finding that because reunification with Erick's mother was feasible, he was not eligible for SIJ status. View "In re Interest of Erick H." on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with possession of crack cocaine with intent to deliver and criminal conspiracy. At trial, evidence of previous drug deals between a confidential informant and Defendant was admitted with a limiting instruction informing the jury that it could consider the evidence only for the purpose of identifying Defendant or to establish motive or intent. At the close of the case, the trial court denied defense counsel's oral motion to give the jury a written instruction on the limited use of evidence of Defendant's prior bad acts. The jury convicted Defendant on both counts. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of convictions, holding that the district court's failure to properly limit the use of the prior bad acts evidence involving Defendant and the refusal to give the jury a written instruction on the limited use of this evidence were reversible error. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Payne-McCoy" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of first degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and tampering with a witness. In this direct appeal, Defendant contended (1) the district court erred in overruling his motion to suppress evidence; (2) the district court erred in giving jury instructions that incorrectly stated the law; and (3) the prosecutor's closing remarks were so inflammatory that reversal under the plain error standard was warranted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in overruling Defendant's motion to suppress; (2) Defendant was not prejudiced and his substantial rights were not affected by the jury instructions; and (3) the prosecutor's comments did not prejudice Defendant. View "State v. Alarcon-Chavez" on Justia Law

After Claimant's attempt to obtain a refund of sales tax on building materials used in the construction of an ethanol production plant was administratively denied in part, Claimant sought judicial review. This appeal turned on a statutory limitation of the exemption for manufacturing machinery and equipment and the limited statutory authority for appointment of a purchasing agent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the statute limited the exemption to purchases by the manufacturer; and (2) a contractual provision purporting to entitle the manufacturer to all tax credits for taxes paid by a construction contractor was not effective as a purchasing agent appointment. View "Bridgeport Ethanol v. Neb. Dep't of Revenue" on Justia Law

After the U.S. Supreme Court declared a campaign finance statute in Arizona to be unconstitutional, the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission sought an opinion from the Nebraska attorney general as to the constitutionality of Nebraska's Campaign Finance Limitation Act (CFLA). Under the CFLA, candidates for certain covered elective offices and other public officials could choose to abide or not to abide by voluntary spending limits. A candidate who abided by the limits and raises and spent qualifying amounts in accordance with the CFLA became eligible for public funds. The attorney general opined that the CFLA would likely be found to be unconstitutional by a court, and the Commission determined it would not enforce the CFLA. The attorney general was then directed to file an action in court to determine the validity of the CFLA. The Supreme Court found that the CFLA substantially burdened the First Amendment rights of Nebraska citizens and that it was, therefore, unconstitutional. View "State ex rel. Bruning v. Gale" on Justia Law