Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting the State’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for damages under the Nebraska Claims for Wrongful Conviction and Imprisonment Act, holding that Plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead a claim of actual innocence.Defendant was convicted of attempted first degree sexual assault and attempted third degree sexual assault of a minor. The court of appeals reversed Defendant’s convictions and remanded the cause for a new trial. While the state sought further review, Defendant completed his prison sentence. Defendant subsequently filed this claim alleging that he had been entrapped. The district court granted the State’s motion to dismiss on the ground that the affirmative defense of entrapment is legally insufficient to show actual innocence as opposed to legal innocence, which is a required element of a wrongful conviction claim. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals, holding that Defendant failed sufficiently to allege facts to support a finding of actual innocence. View "Nadeem v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court entering judgment for Defendants in this tort action filed by a pilot injured in an airplane crash.Patrick O’Brien, a pilot who was seriously injured when the plane he was flying crashed on approach to an airport, sued the aircraft’s designer and manufacturer and the designer and manufacturer or the aircraft’s pneumatic deicing system, asserting strict liability, negligence, and fraudulent misrepresentation claims. The jury returned a general verdict for Defendants. O’Brien appealed, assigning sixty-five claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no merit to any of O’Brien’s assigned errors. View "O'Brien v. Cessna Aircraft Co." on Justia Law

A court can consider an exception to the State’s waiver of immunity for tort claims under the State Tort Claims Act (STCA) sua sponte and for the first time on appeal. In so holding, the Supreme Court overruled Nebraska cases holding that an STCA exception is an affirmative defense that the State must plead and prove.Here, Defendant appealed the district court’s order dismissing his negligence claim under the STCA and his due process and Eighth Amendment claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court dismissed Defendant’s claims against Defendants - state officials and employees of the Nebraska Board of Parole and the Department of Correctional Services - concluding that all of Defendant’s claims were barred by sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, or pleading deficiencies. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the STCA exception for claims of false imprisonment applied, which exception barred Defendant’s tort claim under the doctrine of sovereign immunity; and (2) the district court did not err in ruling that Defendants were shielded from Defendant’s section 1983 action by absolute or qualified immunity. View "Davis v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the holding of the Court of Appeals reversing the decision of the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court finding that Employee’s work-related injury was fully resolved within three days of the work accident and that Employee’s need for additional medical treatment was the result of a non-work-related injury. The Supreme Court held (1) there was sufficient competent evidence to support the Workers’ Compensation Court’s determination that Employee’s work-related injury was fully resolved prior to his subsequent fall; and (2) the Workers’ Compensation Court was not clearly wrong in finding that Employee did not meet his burden of proving that his subsequent injury was the result of his workplace accident. View "Hintz v. Farmers Cooperative Ass’n" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the district court’s exclusion of untimely disclosed expert opinions regarding medical bills in order to enforce progression orders in an automobile negligence case. The court of appeals reversed the judgment in favor of Defendants, concluding that the district court abused its discretion in excluding, as a discovery sanction, nearly all of Plaintiff’s medical bills, as well as testimony from Plaintiff’s expert witness that the bills were reasonable and necessary. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court did not need to apply the factors set forth in Norway v. Union Pacific Railroad, 407 N.W.2d 146 (Neb. 1987) to enforce its progression order; and (2) it was not an abuse of discretion to exclude evidence disclosed more than one year after the discovery deadline imposed by the court’s progression order. View "Putnam v. Scherbring" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Plaintiff, which operated commercial grain warehouses and elevators and owned trading businesses through Nebraska, filed a complaint alleging that several defendants engaged in a pattern of behavior with the intent to deprive it of information, an opportunity to be heard, and due process of law. The district court concluded that Defendants were entitled to immunity under Nebraska’s Consumer Protection Act and the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and that Plaintiff’s claims of conspiracy and aiding and abetting required an underlying tort to be actionable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because Defendants were entitled to immunity under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and Plaintiff alleged only underlying statutory violations; and (2) any amendment to Plaintiff’s petition would be futile. View "Salem Grain Co. v. Consolidated Grain & Barge Co." on Justia Law

Lori Greenwood was injured while working for J.J. Hooligans, LLC. Greenwood was informed that because of nonpayment, FirstComp Insurance Company (FirstComp) was not the workers’ compensation insurance carrier on the date of the accident. Greenwood filed a petition against J.J. Hooligan’s and FirstComp seeking workers’ compensation benefits. FirstComp filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that it was not a proper party because it had timely notified J.J. Hooligan’s that it had terminated its insurance coverage for nonpayment of its premium and therefore did not provide workers’ compensation insurance on the date of the accident. The Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court sustained the motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that FirstComp failed to present sufficient competent evidence as to whether it complied with the employer notice of cancellation requirement in Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-144.03 to warrant an order of dismissal. View "Greenwood v. J.J. Hooligan’s, LLC" on Justia Law

Lori Greenwood was injured while working for J.J. Hooligans, LLC. Greenwood was informed that because of nonpayment, FirstComp Insurance Company (FirstComp) was not the workers’ compensation insurance carrier on the date of the accident. Greenwood filed a petition against J.J. Hooligan’s and FirstComp seeking workers’ compensation benefits. FirstComp filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that it was not a proper party because it had timely notified J.J. Hooligan’s that it had terminated its insurance coverage for nonpayment of its premium and therefore did not provide workers’ compensation insurance on the date of the accident. The Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court sustained the motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that FirstComp failed to present sufficient competent evidence as to whether it complied with the employer notice of cancellation requirement in Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-144.03 to warrant an order of dismissal. View "Greenwood v. J.J. Hooligan’s, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a complaint against William McCoy using the pseudonyms “Jane Doe” and “John Doe.” Plaintiffs alleged that McCoy had sexually abused “Jane Doe” while she was a minor and that John Doe, who later married her, suffered a loss of consortium as a result of McCoy’s alleged sexual abuse of Jane Doe. The district court granted the motion to dismiss on the grounds that the action was time barred under the applicable statutes of limitations and that the complaint was not brought in the real names of the parties in interest. The Supreme Court affirmed on the basis that the action was barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. View "Doe v. McCoy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment for the County of Lancaster in this complaint filed by the City of Lincoln seeking reimbursement of expenses paid on its employee’s behalf after a deputy sheriff with the County made contact with the employee, injuring the employee’s shoulder. The district court concluded (1) the County’s procurement of liability insurance did not constitute a waiver of its sovereign immunity for claims less than the policy’s retained insurance limit; and (2) because the amount in controversy was $63,418, the County did not waive its sovereign immunity by obtaining insurance for claims exceeding $250,000. The Supreme Court affirmed for reasons different from those stated by the district court, holding (1) the County’s procurement of insurance did not constitute a waiver of immunity as to a claim arising out of a battery; and (2) therefore, the County’s policy did not cover the underlying event, and there was no waiver of immunity regardless of the retained insurance limit. View "City of Lincoln v. County of Lancaster" on Justia Law