Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

An insured obtained life insurance policies and named her trust as the owner. Her insurance agent stole the renewal premiums. The policies lapsed. The insured and the trust’s beneficiaries sued the trustee; the trustee brought a third-party claim against the agent. The court bifurcated the trial. Pursuant to a jury verdict on the first stage, the court entered an order against the trustee. Before trial on the third-party claim, the court certified its order as final. The Nebraska Supreme Court dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the certification under Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-1902 was an abuse of discretion. The court expressed concern with the propriety of the court’s determination that there was no just reason for delay. The intent behind the statute was to prevent interlocutory appeals, not to make them easier. The court should ordinarily make specific findings setting forth the reasons for its order. Here, the court’s order merely used the language of the statute and did not explain why certification was appropriate. The court noted the interrelationship of the claims and that a delay of three-four months before the third-party complaint would be ready for trial would not likely cause an unusual hardship. View "Rafert v. Meyer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court dismissing Appellants’ complaint without leave to amend. The complaint stemmed from Nebraska Department of Natural Resources’s (DNR) issuance of closing notices to holders of surface water permits, which barred Appellants from using the surface waters of the Republican River and its tributaries to irrigate their crops. Appellants alleged claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and that they had been subject to an inverse condemnation. Appellants also alleged that their due process rights had been violated and sought restitution. The district court dismissed the amended complaint pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 6-1112(b)(6) without leave to amend. The Supreme Court held (1) Appellants failed to state a claim for inverse condemnation; but (2) the district court erred in failing to find that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Appellants’ claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983, due process, and restitution. The court remanded with directions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction those claims barred by sovereign immunity. View "Cappel v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the juvenile court adjudicating Appellant for violating a Lincoln city ordinance prohibiting disturbing the peace. The juvenile court found that the State had proved the allegations in the petition beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically, that Appellant knowingly or intentionally disturbed the peace of a high school security officer by engaging in fighting. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a school security officer and campus supervisor may be an appropriate victim of disturbing the peace; and (2) the evidence adduced sufficiently supported the juvenile court’s adjudication. View "In re Interest of Elainna R." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court denying Petitioner’s motion for postponement of fees. At the same time he filed his motion, Petitioner presented the district court clerk with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court treated the motion to postpone fees as a request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and denied the request, concluding that Petitioner’s underlying petition for a writ of habeas corpus was frivolous. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the cause with instructions, holding that the district court erred in treating Petitioner’s motion as one for IFP status where Petitioner did not seek IFP status and was not required to obtain IFP status in order to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. View "Buggs v. Frakes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions for unlawful discharge of a firearm and use of a weapon to commit a felony and the sentences imposed of twenty to thirty years for unlawful discharge of a firearm and an additional term of imprisonment for twenty to thirty years for use of a weapon to commit a felony, to run consecutively to each other. The court held (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it sustained the State’s motion to consolidate Defendant’s trial with that of his codefendant; (2) the district court did not err when it overruled Defendant’s Batson challenge to the jury selection process; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed the jury access to surveillance video during deliberations; (4) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s convictions; and (5) the district court did not impose excessive sentences. View "State v. Wofford" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Landlord in this negligence action brought by Tenant seeking to recover damages for injuries she sustained when falling on the entry step of the single-family home she rented. The Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err in the portion of the ruling in the summary judgment order that Landlord was not obligated to warn Tenant of a dangerous condition on the property; but (2) genuine issues of material fact precluded an award of summary judgment with respect to Tenant’s allegation that Landlord failed to exercise reasonable care to repair and maintain the property as required by the parties’ lease. View "Benard v. McDowall, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals addressing Appellant’s successive appeals from district court orders denying successive applications to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Appellant filed the applications in connection with his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. On the merits of the second appeal, the court of appeals concluded that Appellant was asserting a frivolous legal position in his habeas petition and thus affirmed the district court’s order denying IFP on appeal. The court then held the first appeal under submission to give Appellant an opportunity to pay the statutory docket fee. The Supreme Court remanded with directions to vacate the district court’s order in the second appeal and, in the first appeal, to affirm the district court’s denial of Appellant’s original IFP application, holding (1) Appellant’s appeals were governed by Glass v. Kenney, 687 N.W.2d 907 (Neb. 2004), not State v. Carter, 870 N.W.2d 641 (Neb. 2015); (2) with respect to the second appeal the district court erred in denying Appellant’s application to proceed IFP on appeal; and (3) with respect to the first appeal, the lower courts correctly concluded that Appellant’s habeas petition asserted a frivolous legal position. View "Mumin v. Frakes" on Justia Law

In these postconviction proceedings, the Supreme Court vacated the order of the district court on remand from the Supreme Court, holding that the district court misinterpreted the directions on remand and entered an order that exceeded the scope of the Supreme Court’s mandate.On Appellant’s first appeal from postconviction proceedings before the district court, Appellant alleged that his trial attorneys were ineffective. The district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the cause for further proceedings. On appeal, the district court issued an order finding that the “sole” issue for evidentiary hearing was whether Appellant’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a direct appeal. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the order entered by the district court on remand was void because it attempted to affect rights and duties outside the scope of remand. View "State v. Payne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed, as modified by this opinion, the order of the district court dissolving Brian Osantowski’s marriage to Dori Ann Osantowski, dividing the martial assets and debts, and ordering Brian to make an equalization payment of $680,000, distributing the estate about equally. The Supreme Court held (1) contrary to Brian’s argument on appeal, the district court’s decision that stored and growing crops should not be treated the same as cattle herds for tracing purposes was not in error; but (2) the district court committed an abuse of discretion and plain error in its division of certain marital assets and debts. View "Osantowski v. Osantowski" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting the State’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for damages under the Nebraska Claims for Wrongful Conviction and Imprisonment Act, holding that Plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead a claim of actual innocence.Defendant was convicted of attempted first degree sexual assault and attempted third degree sexual assault of a minor. The court of appeals reversed Defendant’s convictions and remanded the cause for a new trial. While the state sought further review, Defendant completed his prison sentence. Defendant subsequently filed this claim alleging that he had been entrapped. The district court granted the State’s motion to dismiss on the ground that the affirmative defense of entrapment is legally insufficient to show actual innocence as opposed to legal innocence, which is a required element of a wrongful conviction claim. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals, holding that Defendant failed sufficiently to allege facts to support a finding of actual innocence. View "Nadeem v. State" on Justia Law