Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Jamin Stoddard and Brian Shipley were injured in a collision with a train owned by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) at a grade crossing in Cass County. Stoddard's guardians and Shipley brought actions against the Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR) and Cass County under the State Tort Claims Act (STCA) and the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (PSTCA), alleging that the governmental entities negligently designed the grade crossing and negligently failed to install various warning devices. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the State and the County. At issue on appeal was whether the negligence claims fell within the discretionary function exceptions to the limited waiver of sovereign immunity under the PSTCA and the STCA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that all of the claims which were the subject of these appeals fell within the discretionary function exceptions of the PSTCA and the STCA. View "Shipley v. Dep't of Roads" on Justia Law

Volunteers of America, Dakotas (VOA) proposed to build an apartment-style building for veterans in Omaha. To construct the building as planned, VOA applied for variances from area and use restrictions under the Omaha Municipal Code (Code). VOA applied to the zoning board of appeals of Omaha (Board) for the variances. Appellants, Field Club Home Owners League and Thornburg Place Neighborhood Association, opposed the application. The Board granted the variances, concluding that the Code created an unnecessary hardship because it did not contemplate a project like VOA's. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and vacated the district court's judgment, holding (1) the record failed to show that VOA had standing to seek the variances; but (2) because Appellants raised standing for the first time on appeal to the Court, the district court must conduct an evidentiary hearing on the issue. Remanded. View "Field Club v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Omaha" on Justia Law

The underlying cases here involved Randy and Helen Strodes' unsuccessful challenge to the valuation of certain property located in Saunders County. The court of appeals concluded that the Strodes' appeals were not timely filed and dismissed their appeals for lack of jurisdiction. The jurisdictional issued hinged on whether the Strodes' motions for rehearing filed before the Tax Equalization and Review Commission (TERC) were timely filed and therefore tolled the time during which the Strodes could thereafter petition the court of appeals to judicially review the TERC's actions. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the motions were timely filed before the TERC, and therefore, the time to petition to the court of appeals was tolled, and the court had jurisdiction over the appeals. Remanded to the TERC with directions to consider the merits of the Strodes' motions for rehearing. View "Strode v. Saunders County Bd. of Equalization" on Justia Law

David Kofoed, the supervisor of the Crime Scene Investigation Division for the sheriff's office was charged with tampering with evidence during the investigation of two suspects in two 2006 murders. After a Neb. R. Evid. 404 hearing, the trial court admitted evidence of an uncharged extrinsic crime during the 2003 investigation of a child's murder. The trial court subsequently found Kofoed guilty of evidence tampering during the 2006 murder investigation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding, inter alia, (1) the trial court did not err in sustaining the State's motion to admit evidence of Kofoed's alleged act of evidence tampering in 2003 during the Rule 404 hearing; (2) the court did not err in overruling Kofoed's motion for a directed verdict and in finding him guilty of tampering with evidence; and (3) the trial judge did not err in failing to recuse himself from the proceeding and in overruling Kofoed's motion for a new trial. View "State v. Kofoed" on Justia Law

Roger McCannon died in an accident while working for Appellee T.O. Hass Tire Company. Christy Spitz, with whom McCannon lived for several years, sought workers' compensation death benefits. The trial judge dismissed Spitz' claim that she was McCannon's surviving spouse after applying Colorado law to find that Spitz was not McCannon's common-law wife. The review panel affirmed. The Supreme Court also affirmed, holding that the trial court was not clearly wrong in finding that the vast majority of objective evidence showed that Spitz and McCannon did not intend to create a common-law marriage and did not conduct their affairs as though a common-law marriage existed. View "Spitz v. T.O. Haas Tire Co." on Justia Law

Michael Ross was convicted by a jury of discharge of a firearm at a person, building, or occupied motor vehicle while in the proximity of a motor vehicle he had just exited, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a felon. On direct appeal, the court of appeals determined the evidence was insufficient to support Ross' convictions. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals erred in reversing the convictions, as the evidence, when considered under the deferential standard of appellate review, was sufficient to support the three felony convictions challenged in this appeal. View "State v. Ross" on Justia Law

The State appealed from a district court order sentencing William Parminter to twelve to eighteen months in prison for aggravated driving under the influence (DUI), third offense, and twelve to fourteen months in prison for DUI, fourth offense. The court ordered that Parminter serve the sentences concurrently. The State appealed, arguing that the sentences were excessively lenient. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court abused its discretion in imposing the sentences on Parminter because the sentences failed to adequately protect the public from Parminter and thus were excessively lenient. Remanded with directions to resentence Parminter to consecutive terms of five to five years and to revoke Parminter's license according to the applicable statutes. View "State v. Parminter" on Justia Law

Appellant William Sellers injured his left knee in the course of his employment with Reefer Systems and sought workers' compensation benefits. The Nebraska workers' compensation court determined that Sellers was entitled to future medical care for the knee injury. A review panel of that court affirmed the award but modified it to exclude knee replacement surgery at present, as the evidence as of the date of trial did not support such a finding. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the modification did not limit Sellers' ability to claim workers' compensation benefits relating to any future knee replacement surgery, and thus, the compensation court review panel did not err in affirming the award as modified. View "Sellers v. Reefer Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

Brandon Reinhart was convicted of using a minor to distribute a controlled substance and conspiracy to use a minor to distribute a controlled substance, specifically marijuana. Reinhart was sentenced to three to five years' imprisonment on each conviction with the sentences to run concurrently. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support Reinhart's convictions on both counts; (2) the trial court erred in admitting hearsay testimony, but the admission of the hearsay statement was harmless error; and (3) trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to make certain hearsay objections because the challenged statements were either admissible or their admission was, at most, harmless error. View "State v. Reinhart" on Justia Law

After a jury trial Patrick Bauldwin was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Bauldwin appealed. The primary issue on appeal was whether the police violated Bauldwin's Miranda rights. The Supreme Court affirmed Bauldwin's conviction and sentence, holding (1) a Miranda violation occurred because Bauldwin clearly invoked his right to remain silent during his interrogation, and the police did not scrupulously honor that right; (2) based on the record, the trial court's admission of the statement was harmless because, when viewed relative to the properly admitted, overwhelming evidence of Bauldwin's guilt, there was no reasonable probability that the jury's verdict was attributable to he court's erroneous admission of Bauldwin's statement; and (3) Bauldwin's other assigned errors were without merit. View "State v. Baudlin" on Justia Law