Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

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