Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Disciplinary charges against Keith, who was admitted to the Nebraska bar in 2003, alleged that he had failed to pay his bar dues for 2012. While the issue was pending, a client claimed that Keith neglect his representation in forming a business. The charges included Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. 3-501.3 (diligence), 3-508.1(b) (bar admission and disciplinary matters), and 3-508.4(a), (c), and (d) (misconduct). The Nebraska Supreme Court continued Keith’s suspension from the practice of law until January 1, 2014. Any application for reinstatement must demonstrate that he has paid all delinquent dues to the Nebraska State Bar Association; has completed at least 10 hours of continuing legal education, including 2 hours of ethics or professional responsibility instruction, within 12 months immediately preceding the date of application; has reimbursed his client all funds previously paid as fees; and has paid all costs assessed against him. View "Counsel for Discipline v. Keith" on Justia Law

Michael and April are the biological parents of Avalyn, born out of wedlock in 2002. A court ordered Michael to pay child support but did not order visitation. In 2005, the state took temporary emergency custody of Avalyn after April attempted suicide. The county sought an adjudication under Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-247(3)(a), but did not give Michael notice. Avalyn was placed in foster care with her maternal grandmother in April’s home. Michael claims that because he was paying support through the state, caseworkers knew or should have known how to contact him. About six months after the disposition he received notice and intervened. The court placed Avalyn with Michael until November 2007, when the parties stipulated that Avalyn should be placed with April but divide her time between her parents. In a suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, Michael alleged that in failing to notify him of the juvenile proceedings, the defendants interfered with constitutional rights to familial integrity, substantive due process, and equal protection and that the Nebraska statutes were unconstitutional. The Nebraska Supreme Court held that claims against state defendants for monetary damages were barred by sovereign immunity; qualified immunity shielded employees from liability in their individual capacities because they did not violate a clearly established right. Claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were not barred. In a juvenile proceeding alleging abuse, neglect, or dependency, due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard for a child’s known adjudicated or biological father who is providing substantial and regular financial support; the statutes at issue are not facially unconstitutional, but cannot be constitutionally applied to avoid notification. View "Michael E. v. State" on Justia Law

In 2006, Defendant was found guilty by a jury of first degree murder, and in 2007, Defendant pled guilty to a separate charge of first degree murder. Defendant was sentenced to consecutive life sentences for the murders. Defendant subsequently filed motions for postconviction relief in both cases, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. The district court denied Defendant's motions without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for postconviction relief in each case without an evidentiary hearing, as Defendant's motions in the two cases did not allege facts constituting a denial of his constitutional rights, and the record refuted his claims as to his other allegations. View "State v. Baker" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second degree murder under a theory of aiding and abetting, criminal conspiracy to unlawfully possess and deliver a controlled substance, and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences, holding (1) Defendant was not prejudiced when the district court allowed his counsel to withdraw prior to counsel and by accepting Defendant's waiver of conflict of interest created by the former counsel's new employment with the county's attorney's office, which was prosecuting Defendant in this case; (2) the district court did not err in allowing evidence of prior bad acts; (3) Defendant's trial counsel's alleged ineffectiveness for failing to request jury instructions regarding robbery and attempted robbery as lesser-included offenses of felony murder did not prejudice Defendant; (4) a jury instruction error did not require reversal of Defendant's second degree murder conviction; (5) the convictions were supported by sufficient evidence; and (6) the district court did not impose excessive sentences. View "State v. McGuire" on Justia Law

Child was born out of wedlock to Mother in 2005. Six years later, Sherman filed an amended complaint seeking to establish paternity both as an individual and behalf of Child as "next friend." Alternatively, Sherman asserted that Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-1411 denied him due process and equal protection. The district court dismissed the amended complaint filed by Sherman as an individual as untimely and dismissed the amended complaint as to Sherman's filing as the next friend of Child, determining that suit may be brought on behalf of a child as next friend only when the child lacks a guardian. The court made no findings as to Sherman's constitutional claims. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the district court's dismissal of Sherman's constitutional claims, holding that Sherman's complaint stated plausible due process and equal protection claims, and the factual allegations suggested the existence of the elements required to show both a due process and an equal protection violation; and (2) otherwise affirmed. View "Sherman T. v. Karen N." on Justia Law

After Decedent died in 2010, her son, Robert, was appointed the personal representative of her estate. After Robert filed an inventory of estate property and a proposed schedule of distribution, Christy, the daughter of Decedent's other son, filed a motion for supervised administration, arguing that pursuant to Decedent's will, she was left an interest in Decedent's land but that Robert did not include this interest in the schedule of distribution. At issue before the probate court was what portion of Christy's interest in the estate was purchased by Mark, Robert's son, at a bankruptcy auction in 1998. The probate court concluded that Christy's interest in Decedent's share of the land was not transferred to Mark following the bankruptcy sale and approved Christy's motion for supervised administration. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the probate court did not err in finding Christy's motion for supervised administration tolled Christy's thirty-day deadline to object to the distribution of assets; (2) the probate court had jurisdiction to resolve the question of what was sold at Christy's bankruptcy auction as it related to Decedent's estate; and (3) the probate court made the correct determination regarding what Christy was entitled to through Decedent's estate. View "In re Estate of Odenreider" on Justia Law

Employee was injured during the scope and course of his employment with Employer, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company. Because he was a railroad employee, Employee filed a claim for personal injury damages pursuant to the Federal Employers' Liability Act. The district court entered judgment in favor of Employee for $145,000. Employer paid the judgment but withheld $6,202 as Employee's share of Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA) payroll taxes on the entire general verdict award. The district court (1) overruled BNSF's motion for satisfaction and discharge of judgment and directed BNSF to pay $6,202 directly to Employee, and (2) directed the parties to agree in writing that no amount of the award would be considered lost wages so as to avoid any obligations under the RRTA. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the general verdict award in favor of Employee was an award of compensation from which Employer was required to withhold a portion of in order to pay RRTA payroll taxes. Remanded with directions that the district court enter a satisfaction and discharge of the judgment upon proof of payment of $6,202 by BNSF to the IRS on account of the lost wages paid to Employee. View "Heckman v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co." on Justia Law

In 1996, Plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident with an underinsured driver. At the time of the accident, Plaintiff had an automobile insurance policy with Farmers Insurance Exchange (Farmers). In 2001, Plaintiff settled with the underinsured driver. In 2011, Plaintiff filed this action based on contract, alleging that her damages from the accident exceeded the coverage she received from the tortfeasor's insurer and that Farmers had failed to pay "sums available" for her benefit pursuant to her underinsured motorist coverage. Farmers responded by alleging that Plaintiff's action was barred by the statute of limitations or by laches. The district court entered summary judgment for Farmers, concluding that the limitations period commenced when Plaintiff settled with the tortfeasor in 2001 and that her claim was barred by the five-year contract statute of limitations. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court erred when it determined that Plaintiff's action accrued upon her settlement with the tortfeasor; and (2) instead, the Court should have applied the Supreme Court's holder in Snyder v. EMCASCO that the action accrues upon the insurer's breach. Remanded. View "Shada v. Farmers Ins. Exch." on Justia Law

Employee, an African-American, was employed by the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services for several years. Employee filed suit against the State and individual defendants in their official capacities, alleging she was denied the opportunity to enroll with the health insurance carrier that had insured her prior to 2007 due to a ZIP code exclusion plan. Specifically, Employee alleged she was discriminated against on the basis of her race because most African-American employees resided in three excluded ZIP codes and were offered substandard health insurance based on the ZIP codes associated with their residential addresses. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants on all causes of action. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Employee's claim of disparate impact arising under Title VII, as the evidence presented by Defendants established that the plans offered in the excluded ZIP codes were equivalent to the plans offered statewide. View "Cartwright v. State" on Justia Law

In 2002, Defendant pled no contest to attempted first degree arson pursuant to a plea agreement. Defendant was discharged from prison in 2003 and was thereafter removed from the United States. In 2012, Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his plea of no contest and vacate his conviction, alleging that his plea and conviction were obtained in violation of his due process rights and that his counsel was ineffective because he did not advise Defendant of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. The district court denied Defendant's motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly determined that neither the postconviction statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1819.02, nor the common-law "manifest injustice" procedure, all of which Defendant attempted to collaterally attack his plea under, provided a basis for relief in this case. View "State v. Osorio" on Justia Law