Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a joint jury trial with his codefendant, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment plus ninety-six to 150 years. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences, holding, inter alia, that the district court did not err in (1) refusing to sever Defendant's trial from his codefendant's; (2) allowing the State to introduce evidence of gang membership and prior bad acts without a hearing; (3) allowing the State to introduce hearsay evidence under the excited utterance exception to hearsay; (4) overruling Defendant's motions for mistrial; and (5) admitting post mortem photographs depicting the victim's face with a fatal wound, as the admission was not unfairly prejudicial to Defendant. The Court also held that there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant's convictions and that Defendant's speedy trial rights were not violated. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

After a joint jury trial with his codefendant, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment plus ninety-six to 150 years. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the district court did not err in (1) failing to sever Defendant's trial from his codefendant's, as Defendant was not prejudiced by the joint trial; and (2) allowing the jury to separate without obtaining a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of Defendant's right to sequester the jury, as the district court met the requirement that the defendant expressly agrees to waive sequestration. View "State v. Foster" on Justia Law

In 2007, Appellant purchased the assets of an indoor football team owned by Omaha Beef, LLC. In 2008, Appellant applied for workers' compensation insurance under the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Plan, arguing that it was entitled to a certain experience modifier (XMod), which is used when calculating the premium owed, because it was a new entity with no claims experience. The National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. determined that Appellant was a successor entity to Omaha Beef, and thus, the various XMods assigned to Omaha Beef for the relevant time periods must be transferred to Appellant. The director of the Department of Insurance affirmed. The district court affirmed, reasoning that Appellant was a successor to Omaha Beef and that the change in ownership resulted in the transfer of the workers' compensation rating for Omaha Beef to Appellant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding (1) Appellant had the burden of proof to show there was no "change in ownership"; and (2) a "change in ownership" existed such that the XMod of Omaha Beef should be transferred to Appellant. View "Gridiron Mgmt. Group, LLC v. Travelers Indem. Co." on Justia Law

Father initiated a paternity action seeking an order declaring him to be the biological father of Child and awarding him visitation with Child. In her answer, Mother alleged that Father's paternity claim was barred by the statute of limitations. Mother also filed a counterclaim asking for a termination of Father's parental rights based on abandonment. The district court determined Father's paternity claim was not time-barred and entered an order terminating Father's parental rights. The supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court properly found grounds for abandonment; but (2) Mother did not meet her burden of presenting clear and convincing evidence that termination of Father's parental rights would be in the best interests of Child. Remanded. View "Kenneth C. v. Lacie H." on Justia Law

Freeholders filed successfully filed petitions to move their property from the Prague Public School District to the Wahoo Public School District. East Butler County School District objected to the petitions because East Butler and the Prague District had a petition pending before the State Committee for the Reorganization of School Districts involving a proposed merger plan that encompassed the Freeholders' property. The Supreme Court concluded that East Butler had standing to appeal the Board's decision and remanded. On remand, the district court determined that the Board had jurisdiction over the Freeholders' petitions, thus rejecting East Butler's argument that the Reorganization Committee had exclusive jurisdiction to act in the matter under the "prior jurisdiction rule." The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the prior jurisdiction rule, if adopted, did not apply to this case, and thus the Board had jurisdiction over the freeholder petitions. View "Butler County Sch. Dist. v. Freeholder Petitioners" on Justia Law

Appellee was employed as a carman for Union Pacific Railroad Company when he was injured by a chair that collapsed, causing injury to his back. Appellee filed a Federal Employers' Liability Act action against Union Pacific and also filed suit against the manufacturer of the chair, Steelcase, Inc. Appellee settled his case against Steelcase. The claim against Union Pacific proceeded to trial. A jury verdict was entered for Appellee in the amount of $1,032,375. The district court allowed Union Pacific to set off the verdict in the amount of $425,000 because of the settlement reached with Steelcase. The court also enforced a medical lien in the amount of $139,845 against that settlement. Union Pacific appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in allowing a setoff of the portion of Appellee's medical bills that were written off by Appellee's medical providers as a result of negotiations between Union Pacific and the providers; and (2) did not abuse its discretion by not modifying the allocation of Appellee's settlement with Steelcase and setting off that reallocated amount from the verdict. View "Strasburg v. Union Pac. R.R. Co." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of false reporting and was sentenced to probation for eighteen months. Defendant was directed to have no contact with her husband without the court's permission as a condition of probation. Defendant appealed her sentence. The Supreme Court (1) vacated the sentence in part, holding that the county court erred in prohibiting Defendant from having any contact with her husband, as the broad prohibition on Defendant's contact with her husband was an unreasonable infringement upon Defendant's fundamental rights arising from marriage; and (2) affirmed the sentence in all other respects. Remanded for resentencing to permit the county court either to remove the condition or to tailor it more narrowly to the factual circumstances of the case and the rehabilitative goals sought to be achieved. View "State v. Rieger" on Justia Law

Service Employees International Union Local 226 (Local 226) was the certified exclusive bargaining agent for three bargaining groups of the Douglas County School District 001 (District). Following the implementation of the District's new vacation accrual policy, Local 226 filed petitions with the Commission of Industrial Relations (CIR) alleging that the District had engaged in a prohibited practice of bad-faith bargaining under the Industrial Relations Act by failing to negotiate regarding the vacation accrual policy and that the unilateral action constituted a change in the terms and conditions of employment with respect to a mandatory subject of collective bargaining. The CIR found that the District had not engaged in a prohibited practice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the District unilaterally changed its vacation accrual policy but presented Local 226 with opportunities to give input on the policy changes and request negotiations before implementation of the changes, and because Local 226 failed to take advantage of those opportunities it waived its right to negotiate on the matter of vacation accrual. View "Serv. Employees Int'l Union (AFL-CIO) Local 226 v. Douglas County Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Kelly and William were the biological parents of two children in the care and custody of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). After the children had been in the custody of DHHS for nearly twenty-eight months, the juvenile court found that no further reasonable efforts were required in support of reunification and that the primary permanency objectives for the children should be changed from reunification. On plain error review, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the juvenile court did not plainly err in finding that reasonable efforts in support of reunification were no longer required and that the primary permanency objectives for the children should be changed from reunification. View "In re Interest of Samantha L." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of the felony offense of driving with a revoked license in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-6,197.06(1). The court sentenced Defendant to ninety days' jail time and a fifteen-year license revocation. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) in State v. Hernandez, the Supreme Court held that section 60-6,197.06(1) was ambiguous and that ignition interlock device violations fall under a different misdemeanor statute; (2) his Department of Motor Vehicles record and documents, and the statements certifying their authenticity, were inadmissible hearsay that violated his right to confrontation; and (3) his sentence was excessive. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) failing to apply the reasoning of Hernandez, as Defendant's conduct was distinguishable from the conduct of the defendant in Hernandez; (2) admitting the disputed documents, as any error on this issue was undoubtedly harmless; and (3) imposing the sentence of ninety days' jail time. View "State v. Leibel" on Justia Law