Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the separate juvenile court of Douglas County extending a juvenile’s term of probation and imposing additional community service, holding that the court did not follow applicable statutory procedures and thereby exceeded its statutory authority.The State moved to revoke probation after the juvenile, who was on probation pursuant to a previous adjudication, allegedly committed a new offense. When the juvenile entered a denial to the new charge, however, the State withdrew its motion. The juvenile court nonetheless extended the term of probation and imposed additional community service. The Supreme Court vacated the order and remanded the cause for further proceedings, holding that the juvenile court exceeded its statutory authority in changing the terms of the juvenile’s probation. View "In re Interest of Josue G." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Appellant’s motion for forensic DNA testing pursuant to Nebraska DNA Testing Act, thus rejecting Appellant’s assignments of error.Appellant was convicted of kidnapping, use of a firearm to commit kidnapping, and conspiracy to commit kidnapping. Two years later, Appellant filed his motion for forensic DNA testing. The district court denied the motion, finding that the items Appellant wanted to test were no longer in the State’s possession and had been destroyed before the motion was filed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding that the State did not destroy evidence in bad faith or in violation of Appellant’s due process rights under the United States Constitution. View "State v. Betancourt-Garcia" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief following an evidentiary hearing.Appellant was convicted of second degree murder under a theory of aiding and abetting, among other crimes. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences on direct appeal. Appellant then filed a timely motion for postconviction relief alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective in several respects. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in failing to find that Appellant’s trial counsel and appellate counsel were ineffective; (2) the trial court did not err in failing to make rulings on certain claims raised in Appellant’s postconviction motion; and (3) Appellant’s argument that postconviction counsel provided effective assistance at the evidentiary hearing was without merit. View "State v. McGuire" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court affirming a school board’s cancellation of the contract of a certificated employee after holding a formal hearing, thus rejecting the employee’s arguments regarding notice and due process in addition to his challenges to the merits of the cancellation. Specifically, the Court held (1) the school board’s notice regarding a hearing on whether to cancel the employee’s employment contract was proper; (2) the school board’s use of an attorney to preside over the employee’s hearing was not improper; (3) the school board was impartial; (4) the admission of evidence related to the employee’s conduct outside the contract period was admissible; and (5) there was sufficient evidence to support the cancellation of the employee’s contract. View "Robinson v. Morrill County School District #63" on Justia Law

In these three consolidated appeals from district court orders in the proceeding for the dissolution of the parties’ marriage, Wallace McCullough appealed an order of contempt for failing to make childcare and property division equalization payments, an order of contempt for failing to pay child support, and an order setting the amount of a supersedeas bond. The Supreme Court (1) dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the appeal of the order regarding the amount of the supersedeas bond, holding that the order was not separately appealable; and (2) affirmed the district court’s orders in the two other appeals, thus rejecting Wallace’s assignments of error. View "McCullough v. McCullough" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court sustaining Appellant’s motion for summary judgment insofar as it awarded her benefits for two scheduled injuries but denied her claim that she was permanently and totally disabled. The Court held (1) there was no merit to Appellant’s first assignment of error that Appellant’s employer admitted, through its responses to Appellant’s requests for admission, that Appellant was permanently and totally disabled; but (2) the trial court erred in weighing the evidence in the summary judgment matter and concluding that Appellant was not permanently and totally disabled. View "Wynne v. Menard, Inc." on Justia Law