Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

At issue was whether the Platte River Whooping Crane Maintenance Trust, Inc. ("Crane Trust") was a charitable organization within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. 77-202(1)(d).The Crane Trust sought a property tax exemption for six parcels of land ("subject properties") for tax year 2015. The Hall County Board of Equalization denied the application for a property tax exemption for the subject properties without giving an explanation. The Nebraska Tax Equalization and Review Commission ("TERC") affirmed the Board’s decision. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the subject properties met the requirements for a charitable tax exemption under section 77-202(1)(d). View "Platte River Crane Trust v. Hall County Board of Equalization" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the district court order granting summary judgment in favor of Heritage Bank in this action for forcible entry and detainer against James Gabel, C.J. Land & Cattle, L.P., and MCGFF, LLC after James failed to pay rent on farmland pursuant to a lease agreement. In its order, the district court concluded that Heritage Bank was the trustee of the Charles L. Gabel Revocable Trust, that Defendants did not timely deliver the 2015 crop payment to the trustee, that Defendants had notice they were not in compliance with the terms of the lease, and that the defect was not cured within a reasonable amount of time. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the record supported the district court’s finding that Heritage Bank was the trustee and had standing to bring this action; but (2) genuine issues of material fact remained regarding the other issues raised by Defendants, precluding summary judgment. View "Heritage Bank v. Gabel" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the district court that denied Plaintiff’s discovery motions and granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants in this wrongful death action alleging medical malpractice.Plaintiff, personally and as personal representative of the estate of Mickley Lynn Ellis, sued Advanced Correctional Healthcare, Inc. and its agents in their individual and official capacities after Ellis, who was incarcerated in the Saunders County jail, died from a bilateral pulmonary embolism while being treated at the Saunders Medical Center. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants, finding no material issue of fact as to causation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. View "Ewers v. Saunders County" on Justia Law

The district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over Retroactive, Inc.’s appeal of the Nebraska Liquor Control Commission’s denial of its application for a Class C liquor license.Retroactive made an application of the Commission’s issuance of a Class C liquor license for its nightclub. The Commission denied the application. Retroactive then filed a petition for review, arguing that the Commission’s decision was arbitrary capricious and unsupported by the evidence, and exceeded the Commission’s authority. The City of Omaha filed a motion to dismiss for failure to name certain citizen objectors as “necessary parties” to the petition for review. The district court denied the motion and then reversed the Commission’s decision. The Supreme Court vacated the district court’s order reversing the Commission’s decision, holding that because Retroactive failed to include all parties of record in the Commission proceeding when it sought review in the district court, the court never acquired subject matter jurisdiction. View "Retroactive, Inc. v. Nebraska Liquor Control Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of first degree murder, manslaughter, two counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person, holding that Defendant’s allegations of error were without merit.On appeal, Defendant argued that evidence obtained pursuant to an alleged invalid warrant should have been excluded at his jury trial and that his counsel provided ineffective assistance. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) Defendant’s first assignment of error was without merit; and (2) there was no merit to any of Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims. View "State v. Nolt" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part the district court’s decree of dissolution in this case, as modified, and vacated in part the decree.In its decree of dissolution, the district court dissolved the marriage of Mark Constot and Maria Onstot, divided their assets and debts, and awarded spousal support for Maria. The contested issues at trial, as relevant to this appeal, were the equitable division of the house Mark owned prior to the marriage and the determination of appropriate spousal support for Maria. The Supreme Court held (1) the order of spousal support was not an abuse of discretion; (2) the district court’s requirement that Mark refinance the mortgage on the house within sixty days was an abuse of discretion, and the decree is modified to extend the time period to six months from the filing of the mandate in the district court; and (3) the portion of the district court’s order stating that Mark’s support obligation would terminate upon Maria’s cohabitation with a significant other was vacated because Maria’s cohabitation with another person was not within the parties’ contemplation at the time of the entry of the decree. View "Onstot v. Onstot" on Justia Law