Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s partial granting of Defendants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and modified the jury award in this case alleging legal malpractice and fraudulent misrepresentation.Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Steven Howard and his law firm alleging that Howard committed legal malpractice. The jury found in favor of Plaintiffs and awarded damages in the amount of $775,000. After trial, the district court partially granted Defendants’ JNOV motion, reducing the damages to $235,968.78. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) the trial court did not err in reducing the jury’s award of damages, but the jury award is modified to $350,000; (2) the trial court did not err in overruling Plaintiffs’ postverdict motion for sanctions; and (3) the trial court did not err in failing to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint for want of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis that the action was not brought by the real party in interest. View "LeRette v. Howard" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s sentence of seventy years to life imprisonment imposed for a murder he committed at the age of fourteen.Defendant pled guilty to second degree murder. In 1988, the district court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment for the murder conviction. In 2013, Defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to the decision in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012). The district court vacated Defendant’s sentence. At the time of resentencing, Defendant was forty-four years old. The district court sentenced Defendant to seventy years’ to life imprisonment for first degree murder. Defendant’s primary complaint on appeal was that his sentence was excessive. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the sentence was not excessive, did not amount to a de facto life sentence, and was not disproportionate to the offense. Defendant’s remaining claims of error were similarly unavailing. View "State v. Thieszen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s sentence of seventy years to life imprisonment imposed for a murder he committed at the age of fourteen.Defendant pled guilty to second degree murder. In 1988, the district court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment for the murder conviction. In 2013, Defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to the decision in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012). The district court vacated Defendant’s sentence. At the time of resentencing, Defendant was forty-four years old. The district court sentenced Defendant to seventy years’ to life imprisonment for first degree murder. Defendant’s primary complaint on appeal was that his sentence was excessive. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the sentence was not excessive, did not amount to a de facto life sentence, and was not disproportionate to the offense. Defendant’s remaining claims of error were similarly unavailing. View "State v. Thieszen" on Justia Law

The district court properly found that Peter Zelenka met his burden of proving that a French bulldog named “Princess Pot Roast,” referred to by the parties as “Pavlov,” was a gift from Jason Pratte and correctly ordered the dog returned to Zelenka. The court, however, erred in finding that, with respect to other items of person property in Pratte’s possession, Zelenka failed to meet his burden of proving ownership.Pratte and Zelenka were involved in a romantic relationship for five years until they separated. Zelenka was unable to retrieve items of personal property he claimed were his and filed a complaint against Pratte, primarily alleging a claim for conversion. The court ordered Pratte to return Pavlov to Zelena but ordered the remaining contested personal property to remain with Pratte. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the court properly concluded that Pavlov was a gift from Pratte; (2) Pratte failed to meet his burden of proving that a Niche leather couch, Niche lamps, and a French bulldog lamp were gifts; and (3) the district court properly found that Zelenka failed to prove ownership of the remaining contested items. View "Zelenka v. Pratte" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court confirming the public sale of a condominium.Appellants, minority owners of the condominium, brought suit against the majority owner, who failed to comply with the declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions. After protracted litigation, the district court eventually appointed a receiver to sell the condominium at a public sale, determining that the co-owners would “never be able to work together.” The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision ratifying and confirming the sale of the condominium, holding that Appellants failed to set forth sufficient reasons for the Court to reverse the district court’s judgment. View "Priesner v. Starry" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the county court denying Petitioner’s petition to be appointed guardian of his niece, holding that the county court lacked jurisdiction over the guardianship proceedings under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA).The county court denied Petitioner’s petition after finding that Petitioner had failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that his niece’s parents were unfit. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment for lack of jurisdiction, holding that because Nebraska was not the niece’s home state under either of the alternatives in section 43-1238(a)(1) of the UCCJEA, the court court lacked jurisdiction under the UCCJEA over this guardianship proceeding. View "In re Guardianship of S.T." on Justia Law

The district court did not err when it used Defendant’s Missouri conviction as a prior conviction to enhance his sentences for his present driving under the influence (DUI) convictions.In each of these separate cases, Defendant pled guilty to three DUI charges. With regard to each conviction, Defendant was found to have had two prior convictions as defined by Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-6,197.02(1)(a). On appeal, Defendant argued that a prior conviction in Missouri should not have been used for purposes of enhancing his sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court’s use of the Missouri conviction as a prior conviction in these cases was not in error; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant in these cases. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

In this product liability action, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the claimant’s expert’s testimony regarding causation.Plaintiff brought this product liability action against Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. and Roche Laboratories, Inc. (collectively, Roche) alleging that she developed health issues as a result of ingesting Accutane, a pharmaceutical drug manufactured and distributed by Roche. After conducting a Daubert/Schafersman hearing, the district court entered an order precluding Plaintiff’s expert witness from rendering opinions on the general and specific causation of Plaintiff’s Crohn’s disease. Thereafter, the Court entered summary judgment in favor of Roche. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the expert testimony after finding that the expert’s methodology was unreliable and conclusion-driven; and (2) with the exclusion of this testimony, there remained no issue of material fact, and therefore, summary judgment was properly granted in favor of Roche. View "Freeman v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc." on Justia Law

In this product liability action, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the claimant’s expert’s testimony regarding causation.Plaintiff brought this product liability action against Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. and Roche Laboratories, Inc. (collectively, Roche) alleging that she developed health issues as a result of ingesting Accutane, a pharmaceutical drug manufactured and distributed by Roche. After conducting a Daubert/Schafersman hearing, the district court entered an order precluding Plaintiff’s expert witness from rendering opinions on the general and specific causation of Plaintiff’s Crohn’s disease. Thereafter, the Court entered summary judgment in favor of Roche. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the expert testimony after finding that the expert’s methodology was unreliable and conclusion-driven; and (2) with the exclusion of this testimony, there remained no issue of material fact, and therefore, summary judgment was properly granted in favor of Roche. View "Freeman v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc." on Justia Law

The stop of Defendant’s vehicle for the purpose of gathering information about the presence of stolen firearms and other criminal activity at the residence Defendant drove from, for which a search warrant was being sought, did not violate Defendant’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article 1, section 7 of the Nebraska Constitution.The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court convicting Defendant of felony possession of a controlled substance, holding (1) the application of the balancing test set forth in Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979), which recognizes that warrantless seizures without reasonable suspicion may be reasonable under certain circumstances, was appropriate under the facts of this case; and (2) the stop was reasonable under Brown. View "State v. Sievers" on Justia Law