Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the disposition of the juvenile court that ordered Juvenile placed in a residential group home, holding that the out-of-home placement order complied with Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-251.01(7).Section 43-251.01(7) requires that a juvenile not be placed out of his or her home as a dispositional order unless all available community-based resources have been exhausted and there is a significant risk of harm to the juvenile or community by maintaining the juvenile in the home. Here, the juvenile court, in a written disposition order, placed Juvenile on probation for two years and ordered her to reside at a Boys Town group home. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the out-of-home placement complied with the requirements of the statute. View "In re Interest of Keyanna R." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the disposition of the juvenile court that ordered Juvenile placed in a residential group home, holding that the out-of-home placement order complied with Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-251.01(7).Section 43-251.01(7) requires that a juvenile not be placed out of his or her home as a dispositional order unless all available community-based resources have been exhausted and there is a significant risk of harm to the juvenile or community by maintaining the juvenile in the home. Here, the juvenile court, in a written disposition order, ordered Juvenile placed at Boys Town group home. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the out-of-home placement complied with the requirements of the statute. View "In re Interest of Nicholas K." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the disposition of the juvenile court that ordered Juvenile placed in a residential group home, holding that the out-of-home placement order complied with Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-251.01(7).Section 43-251.01(7) requires that a juvenile not be placed out of his or her home as a dispositional order unless all available community-based resources have been exhausted and there is a significant risk of harm to the juvenile or community by maintaining the juvenile in the home. Here, the juvenile court, in a written disposition order, ordered Juvenile placed at Boys Town group home. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the out-of-home placement complied with the requirements of the statute. View "In re Interest of Nicholas K." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained when officers, following a traffic stop leading to Defendant’s arrest, searched the vehicle Defendant was driving before impounding it and discovered methamphetamine. Contrary to the sheriff’s office’s policy, a completed inventory sheet did not list the methamphetamine, and the officers failed to list it separately. On appeal, Defendant argued that the search in his case was not a reasonable inventory search because it was not connected in accordance with the policy of the sheriff’s office. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the search was reasonable and that the procedural defects did not raise an inference that the search was conducted to discover evidence. View "State v. Nunez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained when officers, following a traffic stop leading to Defendant’s arrest, searched the vehicle Defendant was driving before impounding it and discovered methamphetamine. Contrary to the sheriff’s office’s policy, a completed inventory sheet did not list the methamphetamine, and the officers failed to list it separately. On appeal, Defendant argued that the search in his case was not a reasonable inventory search because it was not connected in accordance with the policy of the sheriff’s office. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the search was reasonable and that the procedural defects did not raise an inference that the search was conducted to discover evidence. View "State v. Nunez" on Justia Law

In this case involving Father’s child, Fernando, support obligation to his son, the Supreme Court reversed in part the order of the district court recalculating Father’s child support obligation for Fernando.In 2016, Father filed a complaint for a downward modification of his child support obligation to Fernando, originally ordered at $388 per month in 2010. With no tax returns or financial documents in evidence, the district court concluded that Father had not shown a material change in circumstances warranting a reduction in his monthly child support obligation to Fernando. The court also determined that Father’s three “after-born” children could not be used to lower his child support obligation to Fernando. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) there was no error in the district court’s determination regarding taxes; but (2) the district court abused its discretion in basing its child support calculation on an incorrect understanding of the birth order of Father’s children relative to Fernando and Father’s support obligations as required by the 2010 order. View "State ex rel. Fernando L. v. Rogelio L." on Justia Law

In this case involving Father’s child, Fernando, support obligation to his son, the Supreme Court reversed in part the order of the district court recalculating Father’s child support obligation for Fernando.In 2016, Father filed a complaint for a downward modification of his child support obligation to Fernando, originally ordered at $388 per month in 2010. With no tax returns or financial documents in evidence, the district court concluded that Father had not shown a material change in circumstances warranting a reduction in his monthly child support obligation to Fernando. The court also determined that Father’s three “after-born” children could not be used to lower his child support obligation to Fernando. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) there was no error in the district court’s determination regarding taxes; but (2) the district court abused its discretion in basing its child support calculation on an incorrect understanding of the birth order of Father’s children relative to Fernando and Father’s support obligations as required by the 2010 order. View "State ex rel. Fernando L. v. Rogelio L." on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether a lease clause requiring a remainderman that leased real estate from a life tenant for one year ending on October 31, 2015 to pay unspecified real estate taxes made her liable for 2015 taxes that became due and payable on December 31. The life tenant died in August. The county court determined that the lease agreements controlled the lessor’s and lessee’s respective obligations to pay taxes, found the leases to be ambiguous, and ordered the life tenant’s Estate to reimburse the remaindermen. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that, because the Estate did not own the property on December 31, 2015, and the leases did not obligate the decedent to pay taxes that had not yet become due, the county court erred in ordering the estate to reimburse the remaindermen for the real estate taxes they paid. View "In re Estate of Karmazin" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether a lease clause requiring a remainderman that leased real estate from a life tenant for one year ending on October 31, 2015 to pay unspecified real estate taxes made her liable for 2015 taxes that became due and payable on December 31. The life tenant died in August. The county court determined that the lease agreements controlled the lessor’s and lessee’s respective obligations to pay taxes, found the leases to be ambiguous, and ordered the life tenant’s Estate to reimburse the remaindermen. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that, because the Estate did not own the property on December 31, 2015, and the leases did not obligate the decedent to pay taxes that had not yet become due, the county court erred in ordering the estate to reimburse the remaindermen for the real estate taxes they paid. View "In re Estate of Karmazin" on Justia Law

In this dispute over the calculation of he two-year statute of limitations under the State Tort Claims Act (STCA), the Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts that the action was time barred.Plaintiff filed a complaint against the State, the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, and Nebraska Medicine (collectively, the State), alleging invasion of privacy. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s action as barred under the STCA statute of limitations set out in Neb. Rev. Stat. 81-8,227(1). The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err in concluding that Plaintiff’s complaint was time barred under section 81-8,227(1). View "Komar v. State" on Justia Law