Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Mutual of Omaha Bank filed a petition seeking declaratory judgment against Patrick and April Kassebaum, who owed the Bank payments due under several promissory notes. In particular, the Bank sought to have the district court declare the rights of the parties with respect to an assignment of unliquidated proceeds or personal injury litigation executed by the Kassebaums. The Kassebaums filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, a motion for summary judgment, alleging that the assignment was ineffective. The district court denied the motion, and the matter proceeded to trial. A jury entered a verdict in favor of the Bank in the amount of $126,376. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Kassebaums' assignment was valid and enforceable under Nebraska law. View "Mut. of Omaha Bank v. Kassebaum " on Justia Law

Amy L. was the biological mother of Fianna. In 2001, the district court entered a paternity decree finding Jeffrey B. to be Fianna's father. Several years later, Amy began to suspect that Todd W. was Fianna's father. In 2009, Amy filed an application to modify the paternity decree. Todd sought to intervene in the action, claiming that he was Fianna's father. The trial court allowed Todd to intervene, and it later set aside the paternity decree. The court subsequently entered an order finding that Todd was Fianna's father and awarding custody of Fianna to Todd. Genetic tests confirmed that Todd was the biological father. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in permitting Todd to intervene and in setting aside the paternity decree of 2001. Remanded with directions to dismiss Todd from the action and to proceed on Amy's request to modify the paternity decree. View "Jeffrey B. v. Amy L." on Justia Law

For several years, Michael Feloney used his neighbor Robert Baye's driveway to turn his vehicle to enter his garage. Eventually Baye decided to build a retaining wall on his driveway, which prevented Feloney from using Baye's driveway. Feloney sued Baye, requesting the district court to impose a prescriptive easement on Baye's driveway for ingress and egress. The district court granted summary judgment for Baye, concluding (1) Feloney's use of the driveway was permissive under the "unenclosed land" rule, which provides an exception to the rule presuming adverseness when the use is over unenclosed land; and (2) thus Feloney could not prove the elements required for a prescriptive easement. The Supreme Court affirmed but for different reasons, holding (1) the presumption of permissiveness arises when the land is unenclosed wilderness and does not apply in urban settings such as in this case; (2) when the owner of a property has opened or maintained a right of way for his own use and the claimant's use appears to be in common with that use, the presumption arises that the use is permissive; and (3) Feloney's use of Baye's driveway was presumptively permissive under this rationale. View "Feloney v. Baye" on Justia Law

This case involved a civil administrative operator's license revocation for refusal to submit to a chemical test. The Department of Motor Vehicles revoked the operator's license of Ronald Sherman for one year, and the district court affirmed. The court of appeals reversed, determining that the sworn report in this case failed to confer jurisdiction on the Department because it did not sufficiently establish that Sherman was on a public road or private property open to public access at the time of his arrest. Prior to oral argument before the Supreme Court, Sherman died. The Court reversed, holding that because this license revocation proceeding involved a right that was purely personal to Sherman, the action abated on Sherman's death, and there was no longer a party with an interest in the resolution of the appeal. Remanded with instructions for the district court to vacate its order. View "Sherman v. Neth" on Justia Law

Appellant David Pittman brought a negligence action against Western Engineering Company and Evert Falkena (collectively, Appellees) after David's wife, Robin Pittman, died in a work-related accident while working for Western on a road construction crew. David's sole theory of liability was bystander negligent infliction of emotional distress. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees and dismissed David's claim with prejudice, determining that the action was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) David's negligence action was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Act because David accepted payment releasing Western, thus barring his action against Western by operation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-148; and (2) this employer immunity extends to Falkena, a fellow employee of Robin, under Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-111. View "Pittman v. W. Eng'g Co." on Justia Law

The East Butler and Prague public school districts filed a petition for dissolution and merger with the Committee for the Reorganization of School Districts. Afterwards, Appellees, property owners, filed freeholder petitions with the Saunders County Freeholder Board to remove property owned by them from the Prague District into the Wahoo District. The Committee then approved the dissolution of merger. Before it became effective, the Board granted Appellees' petitions to move their property. East Butler subsequently appealed, alleging that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the Committee had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter or that the Committee had prior jurisdiction to act. The district court dismissed the appeal, concluding that under Neb. Rev. Stat. 79-458(5) the appeal was untimely and that East Butler lacked standing to challenge the Board's order. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because East Butler had a valid merger petition that involved the same property pending at the time of Appellees' freeholder petitions, it had sufficient interest in the matter to invoke the court's jurisdiction; and (2) the appeal was timely. Remanded. View "Butler County Sch. Dist. v. Freeholder Petitioners" on Justia Law

Chad Sorensen was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), second offense, with a blood alcohol content over .15. Sorensen was sentenced to probation, and his license was revoked for one year. Sorenson appealed, contending that his confrontation rights were violated when the county court admitted into evidence the affidavit of the nurse who performed Sorensen's blood draw without also requiring that nurse to testify at trial. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed Sorensen's convictions, holding that Sorensen's right to confrontation was violated when the State was not required to call the nurse as a witness at trial. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Sorensen" on Justia Law

Appellants in this case operated restaurants in the City of Omaha subject to a municipal ordinance which became effective on October 1, 2010. The ordinance declared itself to be an "occupation tax" on restaurants and drinking places in the City in the amount of 2.5 percent of gross receipts. Appellants filed an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against the City, asking the district court to declare the ordinance unconstitutional, invalid, illegal, and unenforceable. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because the legal incidence of the tax fell on the business and not the customer, the restaurant tax was an occupation tax, not an illegal sales tax; (2) the ordinance did not violate limitations in the Nebraska Liquor Control Act on the amount of occupation tax for liquor licensees; and (3) the ordinance did not violate the constitutional prohibition against special legislation. View "Anthony Inc. v. City of Omaha" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was whether an alleged victim of child sexual abuse may claim a privilege against testifying in the criminal prosecution of the alleged perpetrator pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-1210, which provides, "When the matter sought to be elicited would tend to render the witness criminally liable or to expose him or her to public ignominy, the witness is not compelled to answer...." The district court found the privilege against exposure to public ignominy did not apply to the victim because her testimony was highly material to the crimes charged. The victim appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed on different grounds after noting that section 25-1210 does not include a materiality exception, holding that public ignominy privilege cannot be asserted by a witness in a criminal case, regardless of the materiality of the testimony. View "State v. Riensche" on Justia Law

Thunder Collins was tried and convicted for numerous crimes, including first degree murder. On Collins' first appeal, the Supreme Court remanded the cause for a hearing to determine whether Collins was prejudiced by the jury's weekend separation during its deliberation. At that hearing, Collins moved for the judge's recusal and to conduct discovery. Both motions were denied. Following the hearing, the district court determined that Collins suffered no prejudice from the jury's separation and overruled his motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed Collins' convictions and sentences, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Collins' motions. View "State v. Collins" on Justia Law