Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The plain language of Neb. Rev. Stat. 44-513 does not require insurance policies to charge identical copayments for a covered service regardless of the type of provider.Health insurance policyholders brought this declaratory judgment action to determine whether section 44-513 allows insurance policies to impose higher copayments on policyholders when they obtain a covered service from a chiropractor rather than from a medical doctor. The district court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the statute did not require insurers to pay the same dollar amount to all providers or to set equal copayments for policyholders. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the plain language of the statute does not prohibit an insurer from requiring different copayments for different types of providers. View "Cookson v. Ramge" on Justia Law

According to the plain language of Neb. Rev. Stat. 84-712.05(3), public records useful to an energy policy debate must be released despite an advantage flowing to a competitor.Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) refused a public records request from potential competitors for documents showing cost and revenue information for each of its generation units. NPPD maintained that the requested documents fell within the exemption contained in section 84-712.05(3), which exempts from disclosure “proprietary or commercial information which if released would give advantage to business competitors and serve no public purpose.” The competitors sought a writ of mandamus to compel disclosure. The district court declined to issue a writ, concluding that the information sought was proprietary or commercial to NPPD and that, if released publicly, would give advantage to NPPD’s competitors. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, construing the exemption at issue narrowly, NPPD failed to demonstrate by clear and conclusive evidence that the information sought would serve no public purpose. View "Aksamit Resource Management v. Nebraska Public Power District" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the divorce decree issued by the district court, which differed from the court’s previously entered decree of legal separation and included an award of alimony and an award of attorney fees to Wife.After the district court issued a decree of legal separation, Husband filed a motion to amend the complaint from legal separation to dissolution of marriage. The district court filed a decree of dissolution that, among other things, awarded Wife alimony in an amount that equaled the health insurance costs which Husband had been paying under the decree of legal separation. In modifying the legal separation decree, the court determined that it would be necessary for Wife to show a change of circumstances in order to be entitled to an award of alimony in the divorce decree, which Wife had not done. Nonetheless, the district court awarded Wife alimony. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Wife was not required to show a change of circumstances for purposes of good cause to modify the award of alimony awarded in the decree of legal separation, but any error by the court in its analysis was not prejudicial to Wife; and (2) the district court did not err in awarding Wife one-half of her attorney fees. View "Connolly v. Connolly" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the divorce decree issued by the district court, which differed from the court’s previously entered decree of legal separation and included an award of alimony and an award of attorney fees to Wife.After the district court issued a decree of legal separation, Husband filed a motion to amend the complaint from legal separation to dissolution of marriage. The district court filed a decree of dissolution that, among other things, awarded Wife alimony in an amount that equaled the health insurance costs which Husband had been paying under the decree of legal separation. In modifying the legal separation decree, the court determined that it would be necessary for Wife to show a change of circumstances in order to be entitled to an award of alimony in the divorce decree, which Wife had not done. Nonetheless, the district court awarded Wife alimony. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Wife was not required to show a change of circumstances for purposes of good cause to modify the award of alimony awarded in the decree of legal separation, but any error by the court in its analysis was not prejudicial to Wife; and (2) the district court did not err in awarding Wife one-half of her attorney fees. View "Connolly v. Connolly" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the dissolution decree entered by the district court dissolving the marriage of Father and Mother. On appeal, Father argued that the court erred in finding that he was the legal father of one of the children and in ordering him to pay child support for that child and two other children, pursuant to an order for support in a separate case. Specifically, Father argued that the court erred in not making an independent termination regarding child support and attaching a child support calculation worksheet to the decree. The Supreme Court rejected Father’s arguments, holding (1) the existing order of support was res judicata on the issue of Father’s paternity; (2) Father failed to elicit sufficient evidence to warrant a modification of the existing order of support; (3) because the court did not modify the existing order of support, it was not required to attach a worksheet to its decree; and (4) Father’s remaining arguments on appeal were without merit. View "Fetherkile v. Fetherkile" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the dissolution decree entered by the district court dissolving the marriage of Father and Mother. On appeal, Father argued that the court erred in finding that he was the legal father of one of the children and in ordering him to pay child support for that child and two other children, pursuant to an order for support in a separate case. Specifically, Father argued that the court erred in not making an independent termination regarding child support and attaching a child support calculation worksheet to the decree. The Supreme Court rejected Father’s arguments, holding (1) the existing order of support was res judicata on the issue of Father’s paternity; (2) Father failed to elicit sufficient evidence to warrant a modification of the existing order of support; (3) because the court did not modify the existing order of support, it was not required to attach a worksheet to its decree; and (4) Father’s remaining arguments on appeal were without merit. View "Fetherkile v. Fetherkile" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Appellant’s appeal from the denial of the portion of his complaint and associated motion asking the district court to declare void a dissolution decree that it had issued more than a year previously.Appellant filed a “complaint” under the same case number as the dissolution decree asserting that the decree was void by virtue of a motion to dismiss he filed prior to the entry of the decree. However, Appellant’s notice of appeal was from an April 4 order denying his requests for various temporary orders and retaining for decision his application to modify the custody provisions of the decree. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that it had no jurisdiction over the appeal because the April 4 ruling was not a final order. View "Tilson v. Tilson" on Justia Law

The legislature has not enacted any statute that exempts fraternal benefit societies from paying sales and use tax.Woodmen of the World Life Insurance Society, a Nebraska fraternal benefit society, requested an exemption from sales and use taxes from the Nebraska Department of Revenue (NDOR) and sought a refund of more than $2 million in sales and use taxes previously paid. NDOR denied Woodmen’s application. The Tax Commissioner upheld the determination. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) neither Neb. Rev. Stat. 77-2704.12(1) nor Neb. Rev. Stat. 44-1095 exempted Woodmen from sales and use tax; (2) Woodmen was not denied due process before the Tax Commissioner; and (3) the hearing officer did not abuse her discretion in excluding certain expert testimony. View "Woodmen of the World v. Nebraska Department of Revenue" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the county court that a modification of the terms of the trust of Jennie Shire was not authorized by the Nebraska Uniform Trust Code where the beneficiaries did not unanimously consent to the modification and the modification would not adequately protect the interests of the nonconsenting beneficiaries.The trustee of the trust at issue filed a petition for trust proceeding to provide increased disbursements from the trust to the remaining lifetime beneficiary. The county court ruled that the requested modification of the trust was not warranted under Neb. Rev. Stat. 30-3837 and 30-3838. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the beneficiaries did not unanimously consent to modification; (2) modification would not have adequately protected the nonconsenting beneficiaries; and (3) the county court was not presented with the issue of whether the trust could be modified under the common-law doctrine of deviation, and therefore, the doctrine of deviation was not appropriate for consideration on appeal. View "In re Trust of Shire" on Justia Law

In this breach of contract action brought by a homeowner (Plaintiff) against the company that laid his asphalt driveway (Defendant), the Supreme Court affirmed in part and in part reversed the judgment of the district court that significantly reduced the reduction of the award given by the county court.After Plaintiff’s driveway began to deteriorate prematurely, Plaintiff sued Defendant. The county court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff. The district court reversed the county court’s determination that Plaintiff’s damages included $26,189 for a two-inch overlay of the entire driveway and remanded the case with directions to enter judgment reflecting damages in the amount of $6,522. On appeal, the Supreme Court held (1) the county court’s verdict should have been limited to plain error; (2) there was no plain error in the county court’s assessment of $26,189 in damages for the two-inch overlay; (3) there was sufficient evidence that it was reasonable and necessary for Plaintiff to contract for a stopgap repair of patchwork replacement of broken sections; and (4) there was no plain error in the county court’s award of discovery sanctions and repairs. View "Houser v. American Paving Asphalt" on Justia Law