Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Bradley Green, a paraplegic, sued Box Butte General Hospital after he fell and injured his left shoulder while admitted as a patient. The hospital allowed Green to have his shower chair brought from home and to attempt an unassisted transfer from his wheelchair to the shower chair. Green alleged the hospital was negligent and that it had failed to exercise a degree of skill and care ordinarily exercised by hospitals in the area or similarly situated areas. The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Green on liability and proximate cause and ultimately found damages of $3,733,022, which it capped at $1 million. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the district court erred in granting partial summary judgment, as Green failed to establish each element of his cause of action as a matter of law. View "Green v. Box Butte Gen. Hosp." on Justia Law

The issue in this appeal was whether a homeowners' association may enforce a covenant prohibiting "business activities of any kind whatsoever" against homeowners who have operated a daycare in their home for a period of twelve years. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court's order to the extent it found that the daycare business violated the "no business activities" covenant and to the extent it granted summary judgment on the defenses of estoppel, laches, and unclean hands; but (2) reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the homeowners' association with respect to the affirmative defense of waiver raised by the homeowners because there were genuine issues of material fact surrounding this issue. View "Farmington Woods Homeowners Ass'n v. Wolf" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his Class IV felony conviction under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-4011(1) based on his failure to comply with certain registration provisions of Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-4004(9) of the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). Defendant claimed the district court erred when it rejected his constitutional challenges to SORA. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction, holding (1) Defendant had not shown that either section 29-4004(9) or section 29-4011 is an ex post facto punishment either on its face or as applied; (2) the district court did not err when it rejected Defendant's due process challenge; and (3) Defendant's additional constitutional challenges were without merit. View "State v. Harris" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of attempted first degree sexual assault in 1995. The Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) had not been enacted at the time of Defendant's conviction, but because he was still on probation on January 1, 1997, he became subject to then newly enacted SORA. Defendant was released from probation in April 1997. In 2009, Defendant was notified that he would be subject to life-time registration under SORA. Defendant was later found guilty of violating SORA. Defendant appealed, asserting that SORA as amended violated the ex post facto and due process clauses of the U.S. and Nebraska Constitutions on its face and as applied to him. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it rejected the constitutional challenges that were raised by Defendant in his criminal proceeding. View "State v. Gaskill" on Justia Law

Following a trial by jury, Defendant was convicted of second degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person. The court imposed an aggregate sentence of eighty to ninety years' imprisonment. At trial, two witnesses testified that sometime before the murder of the victim, they had seen Defendant with a gun, and that he carried his gun in his backpack. Defendant argued (1) this testimony was evidence of a prior crime - possession of a firearm by a felon - and fell under Neb. Rev. Stat. 27-404(2); and (2) as such, the trial court erred in failing to hold a hearing outside the presence of the jury to determine whether the incident occurred pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 27-404(3). The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding (1) the testimony fell under section 27-404(2); (2) the trial court erred in failing to hold a hearing outside the presence pursuant to section 27-404(3); but (3) viewed in context of the whole record, this error was harmless. View "State v. Freemont" on Justia Law

A broker doing business as McCully Ranch Company brought suit against its client Baccaro Ranch, LLC, as seller, claiming that Baccaro breached the real estate listing agreement and that McCully was entitled to a commission from Baccaro under contract theory or, in the alternative, under the theory of unjust enrichment. In a previous appeal, the Supreme Court concluded that the listing agreement was enforceable and remanded the cause for further proceedings. After trial, the district court determined that McCully was not entitled to a real estate commission. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that McCully erred in its judgment, as MuCully produced a ready, willing, and able purchaser during the term of the listing agreement on terms acceptable to Baccaro and therefore was entitled to a commission. View "McCully, Inc. v. Baccaro Ranch Co." on Justia Law

The two minor daughters (Daughters) of Parents were injured in a park in Omaha City when their plastic sled collided with a tree. Parents brought an action against the City to recover medical expenses and loss of services based on Daughters' injuries. Daughters also brought an action, by and through their parents, against the City for injuries incurred in the accident. Both actions were brought under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act. The district court found the accident and resulting injuries were proximately caused by the City and awarded damages in both actions. On appeal, the City argued that the district court erred in its assessment of both liability and damages. In her cross-appeal, one of the daughters contended that the damage cap set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. 13-926, as applied in this case, violated her right to due process. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court in Daughters' action and affirmed as modified the judgment in Parents' action, reducing the total award payable to Parents jointly. View "Connelly v. City of Omaha" on Justia Law

Defendant Francis Seberger was convicted of first degree murder. His conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for postconviction relief, raising Sixth Amendment concerns regarding his trial and appellate court representation. The district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the decision of the district court to deny Defendant an evidentiary hearing on his allegation that he was not properly advised of his right to testify and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on this single allegation; and (2) affirmed the decision of the district court in all other respects. View "State v. Seberger" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted by a jury of first degree sexual assault and felony child abuse. At issue on appeal was the admission of evidence of Defendant's prior sexual contacts with minors, which Defendant claimed violated Nebraska rules of evidence and the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the state and federal Constitutions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in finding that Neb. Rev. Stat. 27-414 does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the federal and state Constitutions; and (2) the trial court did not err in admitting the evidence of prior acts. View "State v. Kibbee" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of attempted first degree murder, use of a weapon to commit a felony, criminal conspiracy, and tampering with a witness. On appeal, the Supreme Court first rejected Defendant's claim that the district court was divested of jurisdiction when Defendant filed a petition for writ of certiorari part way through the proceedings. The Court then reversed Defendant's convictions and remanded the cause for a new trial, holding (1) the district court erred when it gave the jury a written instruction stating that the jury must consider Defendant's refusal to testify as an admission of guilt, and (2) the error was not harmless. View "State v. Abram" on Justia Law