Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Tax Equalization and Review Commission (TERC) affirming the valuations of certain grassland properties owned by the Betty L. Green Living Trust and the Richard R. Green Living Trust (the Trusts) that had been established by the county assessor and approved by the county board of equalization (the Board).In its decision, TERC concluded that the Trusts did not present competent evidence to rebut the presumption that the Board faithfully performed its duties and had sufficient competent evidence to make its determinations. The Supreme Court affirmed TERC’s order, holding that TERC’s decision conformed to the law, was supported by competent evidence, and was neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable. View "Betty L. Green Living Trust v. Morrill County Board of Equalization" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions for first degree murder, use of a firearm to commit a felony, and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, thus rejecting Defendant’s assignments of error.Specifically, the Court held that the district court did not err in (1) admitting the video of Defendant’s interview with law enforcement officials because, where there was no police coercion and Defendant did not unequivocally invoke the right to remain silent, Defendant’s confession was voluntary; (2) not redacting various statements made in an interview pursuant to Neb. R. Evid. 401 to 403; and (3) overruling Defendant’s motion for mistrial based on statements made by the prosecution in closing arguments because, while the prosecuting attorney made several inappropriate statements, Defendant’s right to a fair trial was not prejudiced. View "State v. Hernandez" on Justia Law

A determination that a defendant is subject to the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) must be reviewed on direct appeal from the underlying conviction and sentence, and such a determination is not subject to an impermissible collateral attack in subsequent proceedings.Defendant was convicted of violating SORA’s registration requirement. On appeal, Defendant argued that the State failed to prove he was subject to SORA’s requirements because it failed to present evidence that, during the proceedings for a previous conviction and sentence, the county court had made a factual finding pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-4003(1)(b)(i)(B). The court of appeals affirmed Defendant’s conviction, determining that the determination in the previous proceedings that Defendant was subject to SORA was valid because it was based on an implied factual finding pursuant to section 29-4003(1)(b)(i)(B). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals erred in analyzing whether the determination in the previous proceedings was valid; but (2) this Court’s ultimate conclusion on the judgment was the same as that of the court of appeals. View "State v. Ratumaimuri" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reinstated Defendant conviction and related sentence for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, holding that the district court improperly vacated Defendant’s conviction and sentence based on a police officer’s mistake of law regarding a driving statute and on one of this Court’s decisions, State v. Au, Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-6,224(2) (2010).The Supreme Court held (1) notwithstanding the officer’s incorrect view of the law, when probable cause exists for a stop based on an objective view of the facts known to the officer, the stop does not offend the Constitution; and (2) because Defendant was not placed legally in jeopardy by the district court sitting as an appellate court, Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2316 does not prevent this Court from reversing the district court’s decision with directions to reinstate Defendant’s conviction. View "State v. Thalken" on Justia Law

Tina E., the biological aunt and adoptive sister of the father of Joseph C., lacked standing to appeal the juvenile court’s order ruling that Joseph’s placement with his nonrelative foster parents and permanency through adoption by them was in his best interests.On appeal, Tina argued that the juvenile court erred in changing the permanency objective from reunification with her to adoption by the foster parents and in failing to change Joseph’s placement from the foster parents to Tina. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Tina was not entitled to the statutory right to appeal delineated in Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-2,106.01(2). View "In re Interest of Joseph C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the juvenile court’s order adjudicating Kane L. and reversed the juvenile court’s order declining to adjudicate Carter L. after Kane and Carter were removed from their family home as a result of methamphetamine use by their parents. .The Court held (1) the county showed an evidentiary nexus between the use of methamphetamine and a risk of harm that would support adjudication, and therefore, the juvenile court did not err in adjudicating Kane; and (2) it was error not to adjudicate Carter because Carter was exposed to the same threat of present harm as Kane. View "In re Interest of Kane L." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court affirming that county court’s grant of summary judgment against Plaintiff on her claim that Defendants tortiously interfered with her business relationship with her employer.On appeal, Plaintiff argued, in part, that there existed a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether interference by Defendants was justified. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the undisputed facts showed that Defendant’s actions were justified because they provided truthful information to Plaintiff’s employer about Plaintiff; and (2) therefore, Defendants could not incur liability for interfering with Plaintiff’s business relationship with her employer. View "Thompson v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals remanding this cause with directions to vacate Defendant’s conviction for possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person and to dismiss the charge against him, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress.The court of appeals concluded that there was not probable cause to arrest Defendant and that the inventory search of his vehicle must be suppressed. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the court of appeals erred in vacating Defendant’s conviction because there was probable cause to support Defendant’s arrest, and therefore, the inventory search of his vehicle was authorized and the weapon found in that search was admissible. View "State v. Botts" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission of Industrial Relations’ (CIR) denial of Appellant’s petition requesting decertification of the certified collective bargaining agent for the protective service bargaining unit (PSBU) and certification of itself as PSBU’s new collective bargaining agent, holding that the CIR did not err in dismissing the petition as untimely filed.On appeal, Appellant, Nebraska Protective Services Unit, Inc., doing business as Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #88, argued that the CIR erred in finding that it did not timely file its petition under CIR rule 9(II)(C)(1), not ordering an election to be held, and dismissing its petition. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that because Appellant did not file its petition in the period required under rule 9(II)(C)(1), its petition was time barred, and therefore, the CIR did not err in denying Appellant’s request for an election and dismissing the complaint. View "Nebraska Protective Services Unit, Inc. v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court affirming the county court’s denial, after a hearing, of Appellant’s request to have the county “pay” or waive his probation fees and court costs in his criminal case. The Court held that because Appellant did not present evidence as to his financial condition at the time of the hearing and the record was inadequate to show that the county court erred in not waiving the court costs, the district court did not err in affirming the county court’s denial of Appellant’s requests to waive probation fees and court costs. View "State v. Jensen" on Justia Law