Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Kelly and Paul Rosberg challenged the results of elections for seats on the Public Service Commission (PSC). The Rosbergs lost in the primaries to Gerald Vap and Rod Johnson, respectively. After the general election, the Rosbergs filed suit in the district court, claiming that Vap and Johnson were ineligible for the seats because both Vap and Johnson were not "in good standing" with their professions and were therefore ineligible for the seats. The district court rejected the Rosbergs' claims and granted summary judgment to Vap and Johnson. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the Legislature did not intend service on the PSC to be read as a profession for which one must be "in good standing according to the established standards of" that profession, the district court was correct in dismissing the Rosbergs' challenges. View "Rosberg v. Vap" on Justia Law

The Lincoln County Board of Equalization (Board) determined that Midwest Renewable Energy, LLC (Midwest) failed to timely file its 2009 personal property tax return and was therefore subject to a penalty. Midwest appealed this determination to the Tax Equalization and Review Commission (TERC), which affirmed. Midwest then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which also affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that TERC erred in affirming the assessment of the penalty, as (1) the Board applied the wrong law when it decided Midwest's appeal; and (2) TERC erred on the record when it failed to analyze the effects of the Board's error and when it failed to recognize that the record before it contained evidence not presented to the Board. Remanded with directions to TERC to determine whether the return was timely mailed and filed. View "Midwest Renewable Energy, LLC v. Bd. of Equalization" on Justia Law

In these consolidated appeals, the Commission of Industrial Relations (CIR) determined that Douglas County committed a prohibited labor practice when it increased union members' monthly health insurance premiums without negotiating. The County appealed, contending that the parties' collective bargaining agreement authorized its unilateral action and that its action did not change the status quo. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed (i) the CIR's determination that the County committed a prohibited labor practice in failing to negotiate health insurance premium increases; and (ii) the CIR's decision not to award attorney fees; but (2) reversed and vacated those portions of the CIR's orders requiring the County to reimburse union members for increased insurance premiums deducted from their wages, plus interest. View "Employees United Labor Ass'n v. Douglas County" on Justia Law

The Douglas County Health Center Security Union (Union) filed a petition before the Commission of Industrial Relations (CIR) alleging that its employer, Douglas County (County), had engaged in certain prohibited practices. The CIR found the County had engaged in a prohibited practice when it failed to negotiate its intention to contract out bargaining unit work to a private security company. The CIR ordered the parties to recommence negotiation and awarded the Union attorney fees and costs. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the decision of the CIR with directions to vacate its order and dismiss the Union's petition, holding that the issue of the subcontracting of bargaining unit jobs resulting in the elimination of bargaining unit jobs was covered by the collective bargaining agreement between the County and Union and presented an issue of contract interpretation over which the CIR lacked jurisdiction. View "Douglas Cty. Health Ctr. Sec. Union v. Douglas County" on Justia Law

This was an appeal after a retrial on remand in a breach of contract claim by Insured against Insurer. At issue on appeal was the optional replacement cost coverage that Insured contracted. The question was whether Insurer's general denial of liability excused Insured from complying with a policy condition requiring that Insured actually repair or replace the damaged property before replacement costs would be paid. The Supreme Court remanded the cause for a new trial on the limited issue of the extent to which Insurer's conduct prevented Insured from complying with the repair / replace condition to replacement cost coverage under the policy. Also to be tried on remand was the amount of the actual cash value of the loss in the event Insured was not excused from the condition precedent to replacement cost coverage. View "D & S Realty, Inc. v. Markel Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The Mother of three children appealed from an order of the county court, sitting as a juvenile court, terminating her parental rights to the three minor children. Paternal rights were not at issue in this case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the lower court did not err in terminating Mother's parental rights to her three children, holding (1) clear and convincing evidence showed that Mother's personal deficiencies prevented her from performing her reasonable parental obligations to the three children in the past and would likely prevent her from doing so in the future, and accordingly, the presumption of fitness was rebutted; and (2) clear and convincing evidence showed that terminating Mother's parental right would be in the children's best interests. View "In re Kendra M." on Justia Law

Lindsay gave birth to Alexander, whose biological father was Carlos. Lindsay and Carlos, who were both fifteen years of age at the time of Alexander's birth, were never married. Lindsay planned to place the child for adoption, but Carlos objected and sought custody. The county court found that Carlos did not timely file his objection to the adoption and that Carlos was not a proper party to bring an action because he was a minor. The court of appeals dismissed Carlos' appeal, finding that the county court's order was not a final order. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the county court lacked jurisdiction over the action, which was brought solely in the name of a minor, and therefore, the Court also lacked jurisdiction. View "Carlos H. v. Lindsay M." on Justia Law

The district court dissolved the marriage of Jennifer Dalbey, Appellant, and Matthew Bock. At issue on appeal was whether a trial court in a martial dissolution action has the discretion to order the parties to file a joint income tax return. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's order requiring the parties to file a joint tax return, concluding that trial courts do have such discretion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because a trial court can equitably adjust its division of the marital estate to account for a spouse's unreasonable refusal to file a joint return, resort to a coercive remedy that carries potential liability is unnecessary. Remanded. View "Bock v. Dalbey" on Justia Law

The State of Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission issued an advisory opinion answering the question of whether Omaha firefighters can engage in a campaign to raise funds for the Muscular Dystrophy Association (MDA) during on-duty time paid for with taxpayer funds or using city-owned uniforms and equipment. The Commission stated that such activities violated the Nebraska Political Accountability and Disclosure Act (NPADA). Appellants, the Nebraska Professional Firefighters Association, its president, and the MDA, filed an action against the Commission, asking the district court to declare the advisory opinion invalid. The district court dismissed the case, determining that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review a Commission advisory opinion. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and the court of appeals correctly dismissed the appeal. View "Engler v. State" on Justia Law

Westin Hills West Three Townhome Owners Association (the Association) appealed an order of the district court, which entered summary judgment in favor of the owner of the property, Federal National Mortgage Association, doing business as Fannie Mae (FNMA). In this foreclosure of lien case, the Association claimed that the recording of its declaration of covenants before the deed of trust gave the assessment lien recorded after the deed of trust first priority. The district court rejected this claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court did not err in granting FNMA's motion for summary judgment, as the deed of trust was superior to any assessment lien mentioned in the declaration of the Association. View "Westin Hills Townhome Owners Ass'n v. Fed. Nat'l Mortgage Ass'n" on Justia Law