Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of Scheels All Sports, Inc. and dismissing Plaintiff's allegations that she tripped and fell due to a dangerous condition on the premises, holding that there was no error.On appeal, Plaintiff argued, among other things, that the district court erred in prematurely shifting the evidentiary burden to her as the nonmoving party to show the existence of a genuine factual dispute when Scheels had not met its prima facie burden as the moving party. Specifically, Plaintiff argued that the only way Scheels could meet its initial burden was to offer evidence affirmatively negating Plaintiff's negligence claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the 2017 amendments to Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-1332(2) expressly allow a moving party to show the absence of a genuine dispute as to any material fact that "an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact; (2) Scheels satisfied its prima facie burden; and (3) Plaintiff did not show a genuine dispute of material fact sufficiency to preclude summary judgment. View "Clark v. Scheels All Sports, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources and dismissing Plaintiffs' lawsuit alleging negligence and nuisance, holding that immunity in the Safety of Dams and Reservoirs Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. 46-1601 to 46-1670, barred the claims.This lawsuit arose from the 2019 failure of Spencer Dam, leading to the destruction of nearby property and one person's death. Plaintiffs, the property owners and the decedent's surviving spouse, sued the Department alleging that the Department and its predecessor entities caused the Dam's failure and interfered with their use and enjoyment of their property. The court entered summary judgment in favor of the Department, determining that the Department had immunity under the Act. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Act provided the Department with immunity for the claims asserted against it, and therefore, the Department was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. View "Angel v. Neb. Dep't of Natural Resources" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court dismissing the underlying negligence complaint due to a lack of "solid evidence" as to the element of proximate cause, holding that Plaintiffs showed the existence of a material fact.Clay Block was killed when he fell from the balcony of his friend's second-story apartment. Block's estate and family (Plaintiffs) brought suit alleging that Defendants were negligent in failing to repair or replace the balcony railing despite notice that it was unsafe and in failing to warn Block that the railing was unsafe. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to support their allegation of proximate cause to preclude summary judgment. View "Estate of Block v. Estate of Becker" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court continuing an ex parte sexual assault protection order, holding that the sexual assault protection order was properly continued.Amanda F. was granted an ex parte sexual assault protection order against Daniel K. At the close of the evidence, the district court found that a statutory sexual assault offense had occurred, concluded that the risk of future harm was not a consideration under Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-311.11, the sexual assault protection order statute, and that the protection order should remain in effect for a period of one year. The Supreme Court affirmed the continuation of the sexual assault protection order, holding that Daniel did not carry his burden to show cause why the protection order should not remain in effect. View "Amanda F. v. Daniel K." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the compensation court concluding that a claimant who sustains injuries along the same extremity sustains an injury to a single member for workers' compensation purposes, holding that the compensation court's decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-121(3).Claimant injured her right wrist and right elbow upon falling at work. Claimant filed a claim for benefits, asserting that the workers' compensation court should award her permanent disability benefits based on her loss of earning capacity. At issue was section 48-121(3), which provides for discretionary loss of earning capacity where there is a "loss or loss of use of more than one member of parts of more than one member[.]" The compensation court refused to consider an award based on the loss of earning capacity because "an injury to the wrist and the elbow of the same arm is still an injury to a single member and does not entitle an employee to a loss of earning power.” The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the compensation court erred in its interpretation of section 48-121(3). View "Espinoza v. Job Source USA, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the district court relying on the single publication rule to determine when the underlying defamation claim accrued, holding that the district court properly applied the single publication rule.In 2019, Roses Roses posted a review on Timothy Ashford's Google business page stating that he was a "disheveled, unorganized, unreliable attorney with questionable ethics...[.]" Ashford filed two separate lawsuits alleging defamation. The district court entered orders granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants. At issue on appeal was the applicability of the single publication rule to allegedly defamatory internet publications. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no error in the district court's application of the single publication rule; and (2) Ashford's remaining assignments of error were without merit. View "Ashford v. Roses" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting Defendant's motion for a directed verdict against Plaintiffs on their claims for negligence, holding that the district court did not err in granting a directed verdict or in instructing the jury to disregard the testimony of Plaintiffs' expert.Plaintiffs, Alpha Wealth Advisors, LLC and Michael Hall, sued Defendant for negligence following a traffic accident, alleging that they lost commissions because, for several weeks, Hall's injuries from the accident kept him from meeting with clients. The district court granted Defendant's motion for a directed verdict against Plaintiffs on those claims because the evidence was insufficient to submit those claims to a jury. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting a directed verdict or in instructing the jury to disregard the testimony of Plaintiffs' expert. View "Alpha Wealth Advisors v. Cook" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting a summary judgment rejecting Plaintiffs' negligence claim against a university, holding that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment.The university student in this case, a soccer player, was injured while he engaged in a mandatory strength and conditioning workout. The student and his mother (together, Plaintiffs) sued the university, alleging negligence. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the university, ruling the claim was barred by the "Assumption of Risk and Waiver of Liability Release" signed by the student and his mother before he started school. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the release was valid and enforceable and relieved the university of liability for its ordinary negligence; and (2) the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for Plaintiffs. View "Sinu v. Concordia University" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding that Tonya Edwards and Jennifer Edwards failed to state a claim for contribution or indemnity and denying the Edwardses' claim for subrogation, holding that there was no error.The Edwardses, as assignees of Douglas County, brought complaints against the estate of Kenneth Clark seeking to recover expenses that County incurred in defending and settling lawsuits the Edwardses brought against it for allegedly responding negligently to acts of assault and battery committed by Clark. The district court concluded that the County was immune under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act from claims arising out of battery, and therefore, the County did not have a common liability with Clark's estate. The court thus denied the claims for contribution or indemnity and for subrogation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in dismissing the Edwardses' complaint. View "Edwards v. Estate of Clark" on Justia Law

In this case arising from a fatal vehicle accident the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting a directed verdict in favor of Broken Bow Public Schools (BBPS) and dismissed the cross-appeals as moot, holding that the district court did not err.Michael and Cathy Christensen brought this case individually and as parents of their son, Chad Christensen, who was seriously injured when a BBPS activities van in which Chad was a passenger was head by a truck driven by Albert Sherbeck. The Christensens separately sued the Sherbeck estate. The cases were consolidated. The court of appeals reversed a directed verdict in favor of BBPS. On remand, the district court granted a directed verdict in favor of BBPS and against the Christensens, dismissed the Christensens' complaint, and dismissed as moot the third-party complaint brought by BBPS against the Sherbeck estate. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's directed verdict for BBPS and dismissed the cross-appeals as moot, holding that the district court correctly interpreted the relevant statutes. View "Christensen v. Broken Bow Public Schools" on Justia Law