Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Workers’ Compensation Court awarding an injured employee unspecified vocational rehabilitation. A vocational rehabilitation counselor recommended formal training. A vocational rehabilitation specialist, however, “denied” the proposed plan, concluding that formal training was not reasonable or necessary. The compensation court dismissed Employer’s petition to eliminate the formal training requirement and ordered that Employee was entitled to participate in the proposed vocational rehabilitation plan. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the findings of the compensation court were supported by competent evidence, and the plan would comport with the statutory goal to return the injured employee to “suitable employment.” View "Anderson v. EMCOR Group, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Nebraska Tax Equalization and Review Commission (TERC), which affirmed the valuation of the Washington County Board of Equalization of two parcels of land owned by William Burdess located in Washington County. Both parcels consisted of agricultural land, a homesite, a secondary building, and wasteland. Burdess protested the 2013 through 2016 assessed values of the two parcels, arguing that the wasteland and homesite acres were not properly valued. The TERC affirmed the Board’s decision as to the value of the wasteland and homesite acres. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the TERC did not err in its valuation of the wasteland and in its valuation of the homesite acres associated with the property. View "Burdess v. Washington County Board of Equalization" on Justia Law

In these consolidated appeals, the Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the district court denying Defendants’ motions for absolute discharge. Gerard Bridgeford and Judith Bridgeford were charged with several drug-related crimes. Both defendants eventually filed separate motions for absolute discharge alleging that their statutory and constitutional speedy trial rights had been violated. The district court overruled the motions, reasoning that, under the plain language of Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1207(4)(b), Defendants permanently waived their statutory right to a speedy trial when they requested a continuance that resulted in a trial date within the statutory six-month period’s being moved to a date outside of the statutory six-month period. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendants both permanently waived their statutory right to a speedy trial; and (2) there was no merit to Defendants’ assertions that the district court erred in failing to grant their motions for absolute discharge on the ground that their constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated. View "State v. Bridgeford" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court entering judgment for Defendants in this tort action filed by a pilot injured in an airplane crash.Patrick O’Brien, a pilot who was seriously injured when the plane he was flying crashed on approach to an airport, sued the aircraft’s designer and manufacturer and the designer and manufacturer or the aircraft’s pneumatic deicing system, asserting strict liability, negligence, and fraudulent misrepresentation claims. The jury returned a general verdict for Defendants. O’Brien appealed, assigning sixty-five claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no merit to any of O’Brien’s assigned errors. View "O'Brien v. Cessna Aircraft Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court affirming the county court’s order denying Appellant’s motion for absolute discharge, holding that thee court was unable to review the trial court’s determination as to whether charges should be dismissed on speedy trial grounds. Citing State v. Williams, 761 N.W.2d 514 (Neb. 2009), the Supreme Court ruled that the county court, as part of its ruling on Appellant’s motion for absolute discharge, was required to set forth the calculation of whether the speedy trial clock, as extended by statutorily excludable periods, had expired prior to the commencement of trial and that the trial court in this case did not. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the county court with directions to enter specific findings pursuant to the court’s directive in Williams. View "State v. Lintz" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the county court, sitting as a juvenile court, to decline to adopt a case plan and court report recommended by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Instead, the juvenile court ordered certain other directives, including specifically ordering that DHHS update the children’s immunizations. The parents of the children appealed, arguing that the juvenile court was without authority to order DHHS to immunize the children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-488(2), the juvenile court was authorized to require DHHS to immunize the children. View "In re Interest of Becka P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals determining that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant to two years’ imprisonment and twelve months’ postrelease supervision connected to Defendant’s no contest plea to a charge of enticement by electronic communication device. On appeal, Defendant claimed that the district court had imposed an excessive sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed after clarifying certain standards relating to a sentencing decision under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2204.02, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that there were substantial and compelling reasons why Defendant could not effectively and safely be supervised in the community and when it therefore imposed a sentence of imprisonment rather than probation. View "State v. Dyer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Appellant’s successive motion for postconviction relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing and without requiring a response from the State. The district court concluded that the motion (1) was time-barred under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-3001(4), (2) impermissibly sought to raise grounds for relief that either had been litigated in Appellant’s first postconviction motion or were available at the time of his first motion, and (3) was frivolous. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) denying Appellant’s successive motion for postconviction relief without notice and hearing, (2) denying Appellant’s motion to alter or amend the judgment and denying his motion to amend the successive postconviction motion, and (3) denying Appellant’s motion for appointment of postconviction counsel. View "State v. Amaya" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal from the district court’s order that denied his request to modify his probation order. In 2015, Appellant was convicted of proximately causing serious bodily injury to another while driving under the influence of alcohol. The district court placed Appellant on probation for a period of sixty months. In 2016, Appellant filed a motion to modify or clarify the probation order. The court concluded that it lacked authority to modify the terms of Appellant’s probation and overruled the motion. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Appellant’s untimely challenge to its sentencing order through a motion to modify or clarify the probation order. View "State v. Irish" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions of four counts of first degree sexual assault of a child and one count of child abuse and the sentences imposed in connection with the convictions. Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for a mandatory minimum term of fifteen years and a maximum term of twenty years for each of the four sexual assault convictions, two of which were ordered to be served consecutively. The court held (1) Defendant failed to properly preserve his facial challenge to the statutory classification scheme under Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-319.01; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by ordering two of the mandatory minimum sentences to run consecutively. View "State v. Stone" on Justia Law