Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

At issue in these forty appeals, consolidated into four for purposes of appeal, was whether the individual landowners were entitled to an award of attorney fees under Neb. Rev. Stat. 76-726.Just prior to TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP’s eminent domain proceedings seeking to acquire right-of-way and other property interests in constructing an oil pipeline, certain property owners - including some of the same landowners involved in these eminent domain proceedings - filed a constitutional challenge to the pipeline route. TransCanada then dismissed its condemnation petitions, except that the Holt County petitions were dismissed in order for TransCanada to pursue approval of a pipeline route by the Public Service Commission. The landowners filed motions for attorney fees and costs. In each case, the county court granted the requests for attorney fees. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that none of the landowners established that they were entitled to attorney fees under the circumstances. View "TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP v. Nicholas Family Ltd. Partnership" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the postconviction court denying Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief asserting twelve acts of ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the motion for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing or appointing counsel. On appeal, the Supreme Court held (1) Appellant was not entitled to relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims; (2) Defendant’s claims of sentencing error did not warrant an evidentiary hearing; and (3) because Appellant’s postconviction motion presented no justiciable issues for postconviction relief, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel. View "State v. Haynes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated Defendant’s sentence imposed on his conviction for use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony and affirmed his convictions for first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony.After a jury found Defendant guilty, the district court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment on the murder count. On the second count, the court initially imposed a consecutive prison sentence of fifty to fifty years but, after a sidebar conference requested by defense counsel, reduced the term to twenty to twenty years. The Supreme Court held (1) as to Defendant’s assignments of error, any error was harmless; and (2) there was plain error in the sentence imposed on the second count because the trial court’s initial sentence was validly imposed and took effect as soon as it was pronounced, and therefore, the court’s subsequent reduction of the term of imprisonment was a nullity. View "State v. Kidder" on Justia Law

In these two consolidated appeals stemming from marital dissolution proceedings, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ determination that a district court must state specific findings in order to set aside or modify a referee’s report authorized by chapter 25 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes as clearly against the weight of the evidence. The Court held that nothing in the plain language of Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-1131 requires explicit findings, and therefore, a district court may implicitly find that a referee’s findings are against the clear weight of the evidence. In the second appeal, the assigned errors flowing from contempt proceedings lacked merit, and therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Becher v. Becher" on Justia Law

Two interim juvenile court orders, one dictating an out-of-home placement and the other continuing it, complied with the statutory requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-251.01(7)(a) and (b).After in-home services proved ineffective, the juvenile court ordered Juvenile’s placement at Omaha Home for Boys. The court then continued this interim order and continued the dispositional hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the juvenile court made the correct statutory findings that all community-based resources had been exhausted and that maintaining Juvenile in his home presented a significant risk of harm to him or the community. View "In re Interest of Dana H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal brought by a juvenile challenging an order of the juvenile court ordering that he be removed from his family home and placed in Boys Town, holding that the juvenile court’s order was not a final order.On appeal, the juvenile argued that there was insufficient evidence for the juvenile court to find that, under Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-251.01(7), all community-based resources had been exhausted and that maintaining him in his home presented a significant risk of harm to him or the community. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the order appealed from did not substantially affect the juvenile’s right to home placement and was thus not a final order under Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-1902(2). View "In re Interest of Zachary B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration, although for different reasons than those of the district court.In denying the motion to compel arbitration, the district court concluded that the agreement to arbitrate concerned or related to an insurance policy and was thus unenforceable under Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-2602.01(f)(4). On appeal, Appellant argued that the district court erred in denying the motion to compel arbitration and in determining that arbitration agreement concerned or related to an insurance policy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was a failure of proof regarding the arbitration itself because the record did not show that the relevant parties agreed to submit future disputes to binding arbitration. View "Zweiback Family L.P. v. Lincoln Benefit Life Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s conviction for incest but vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing due to plain error in connection with sentencing.Appellant entered a no contest plea to incest. The district court sentenced Defendant to four to four years’ imprisonment, with credit for eleven days served, and a term of two years’ postrelease supervision. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding (1) the district court’s incorrect advisement to Appellant regarding the collateral Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) consequence of his plea did not invalidate his plea or warrant the relief of withdrawal; and (2) the district court failed to complete the SORA notification requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-4007, which the court was mandated to do in this case, and therefore, the case must be remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Lane" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order denying Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief, holding that Appellant failed to allege sufficient facts supporting the majority of his claims and that his remaining claims were without merit.Appellant pled no contest to first degree sexual assault and was sentenced to ten to fifteen years’ imprisonment with credit for time served. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. Appellant then filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, concluding that Appellant’s claims were either insufficiently pled or without merit. The court also denied Appellant’s request for appointment of postconviction counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant did not allege facts sufficient to entitle him to an evidentiary hearing on his postconviction claim; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint counsel. View "State v. Collins" on Justia Law

Under the facts of this case, certain childcare centers did not owe a legal duty to protect an infant from the criminal acts of a former employee.The infant in this case was abused by his nanny, and the infant died from his injuries several days later. The parents and special administrator for the infant’s estate sued two childcare centers where the nanny had worked previously, alleging that the childcare centers were negligent because the knew or should have known that the nanny had been abusive to other children while working as their employee but failed to report it to authorities. The district court directed a verdict in favor of the childcare centers and dismissed them from the case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, as a matter of law, the childcare centers could not be liable in tort for the infant’s death because their conduct did not create a risk of physical harm to the infant and because they did not have a special relationship with either the infant, Plaintiffs or the nanny that would give rise to an affirmative duty to protect the infant from the risks posed by the nanny. View "Bell v. Grow With Me Childcare & Preschool" on Justia Law