Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The district court erred in concluding that because of arbitration and venue provisions in an employment contract between the parties, it lacked jurisdiction.Nearly three years into the litigation in this case, the Douglas County District Court indefinitely stayed a claim for dissolution of one business entity, a party in the case, and dismissed sua sponte all other claims, noting that the employment contract contained arbitration and venue provisions that were outside the district court’s jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed the stay and dismissal order and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that because no party sought to enforce the arbitration agreement, it was error for the district court to do so on its own accord. View "Boyd v. Cook" on Justia Law

At issue in this custody action was whether the district court’s consent to adoption or the court’s stay of the custody action pending the resolution of the adoption petition presented a final order.Plaintiff, the former partner of the biological mother of the child in this case, brought this custody action, alleging that she had loco parentis status to the child. Approximately one month after Plaintiff’s custody action was filed. Defendant, the biological mother, and her wife then filed a petition in county court for stepparent adoption. The district court consented to the adoption and state the custody action pending the resolution of the adoption petition. Plaintiff appealed the order consenting to the adoption proceeding. The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal, holding that neither that order granting consent to adoption nor the order staying the custody proceedings pending further order of the court presented a final, appealable order. View "Jennifer T. v. Lindsay P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, entered after a jury trial, in favor of Otoe County School District 66-0111 in this dispute over amounts owed under a contract between the School District and Facilities Cost Management Group (FCMG).In the first appeal in this case, the Supreme Court concluded that the jury had been erroneously instructed and remanded the cause for a new trial. On retrial, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the School District. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in (1) admitting certain evidence; (2) instructing the jury; and (3) ruling on FCMG’s posttrial motions. View "Facilities Cost Management Group v. Otoe County School District 66-0111" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court finding Father in willful contempt of a support order for failure to pay child support. On appeal, Father argued that he did not willfully disobey the support order and that the purge plan set forth in the contempt order was impossible to perform, making it punitive rather than a coercive sanction. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Father was in contempt; and (2) the contempt order did not impermissibly impose a criminal or punitive sanction in a civil proceeding because it was not impossible to comply with the order. View "State ex rel. Maria B. v. Kyle B." on Justia Law

An interlocutory appeal is not authorized under Nebraska’s “three strikes” prison litigation statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-3401, which prohibits a prisoner who has previously filed at least three frivolous civil actions from proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP) without leave of court.In this action alleging civil rights violations relating to Appellant’s treatment by prison officials and the conditions of his confinement, the district court initially sustained Appellant’s motion to proceed IFP. Upon Appellees’ motion to reconsider, the district court vacated the prior order allowing Appellant to proceed IFP pursuant to the “three strikes” provision because Appellant had previously filed three district court cases in which he had been denied IFP status. Appellant appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Appellant’s interlocutory appeal, holding that neither section 25-3401 nor the general IFP statute statute provides a right to interlocutory appeal of a “three strikes” denial. View "Robinson v. Houston" on Justia Law

In this criminal case, the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s plea in bar to charges of sexual assault of a child.During his criminal trial, Defendant moved for a mistrial based upon the court’s decision to grant the State’s motion to amend the information and a jury instruction after the jury had begun deliberations. The court sustained the motion and declared a mistrial. Thereafter, Defendant filed a plea in bar asserting that a new trial would subject him to double jeopardy because the State created the need for a mistrial. The district court denied the plea in bar. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that double jeopardy did not bar a new trial because Defendant failed to show that the State provoked him into moving for a mistrial and that double jeopardy did not prevent a new trial. View "State v. Bedolla" on Justia Law

At issue in this action against Tenant, which abandoned leased property and then surrendered the property, was whether the district court correctly awarded damages to the date Landlord, which elected to sell the property, reached a tentative agreement to sell the property rather than to an actual sale date. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s damages award, holding that, although Landlord did not elect to accept Tenant’s abandonment and terminate the lease, the duration of finalizing the sale was not reasonable. The court, however, reversed the district court’s dismissal of Tenant’s out-of-state guarantor for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the guaranty established sufficient connections to Nebraska. View "Hand Cut Steaks Acquisitions, Inc. v. Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon of Nebraska, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of first degree murder and two counts of possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person and sentencing him to life imprisonment on the murder conviction and fifteen to twenty years’ imprisonment on the possession convictions. The court held that the district court did not err in (1) overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the search of a vehicle; (2) overruling Defendant’s motion in limine seeking to exclude certain testimony; (3) denying Defendant’s motion to strike a statement made by the State in rebuttal closing argument; (4) failing to find that Defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel; and (5) overruling Defendant’s motion to dismiss and motion for directed verdict. View "State v. Hill" on Justia Law

A petitioner for habeas corpus relief whose initial motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) was denied and who takes a timely interlocutory appeal from that denial, accompanied by a motion to proceed IFP on appeal, need not file a second appeal where the district court also denies the second-degree IFP motion. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ decision summarily dismissing Petitioner’s appeal in this case, holding that the court of appeals acquired jurisdiction upon Petitioner’s timely filing of a notice of appeal, accompanied by an application for IFP status and proverty affidavit. The court remanded the cause to the court of appeals for a determination on the merits of the errors assigned by Petitioner regarding the denial of his first motion to proceed IFP. View "Campbell v. Hansen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Plaintiff’s motion for new trial in this personal injury action. Plaintiff sued Defendant for negligence after an automobile collision, claiming that her neck, back, and wrists were injured in the accident. Defendant admitted that her negligence caused the collision and “some injury” to Plaintiff but denied the nature and extent of the injuries and damages claimed by Plaintiff. The jury returned a unanimous verdict for Defendant. The district court denied Plaintiff’s motion for new trial and entered judgment on the jury’s verdict. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the jury’s verdict was supported by sufficient evidence. View "Lewison v. Renner" on Justia Law