Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Accrued investment earnings or appreciation of nonmarital assets during the marriage are presumed marital unless the party seeking the classification of the growth as nonmarital proves that the growth is readily identifiable and traceable to the nonmarital portion of the account and the growth is not due to the active efforts of either spouse.In this dissolution action, Husband, the cofounder and president of a C corporation who owned thirty-four percent of its stock, argued that none the nearly $5 million in appreciation of his stock interest during the parties’ twenty-five-year marriage was subject to equitable division. The trial court found that Husband’s thirty-four percent ownership interest in the corporation was, in its entirety, nonmarital. The Supreme Court reversed the division of the C corporation property, holding that, based on the active appreciation rule, the court should not have excluded the corporation of the marital estate. View "Stephens v. Stephens" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and in part vacated and dismissed a district court order that dismissed Homeowners’ amended petition in order challenging a conditional use permit issued by the Omaha Planning Board and a special use permit and rezoning granted by the Omaha City Council. The appeal arose from a conditional use permit, special use permit, and rezoning granted to Developers for a proposed convenience storage and warehouse facility. Homeowners filed an amended petition in error with the district court seeking to challenge the permits and rezoning. The district court dismissed the amended petition in error and affirmed the determinations of the city council and planning board. The Supreme Court (1) dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the portion of Homeowners’ appeal addressing the rezoning and special use permit and vacated the district court’s order in that regard for lack of jurisdiction; and (2) affirmed the district court’s order in regard to the conditional use permit. View "Landrum v. City of Omaha Planning Board" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Appellant’s motion for new trial claiming newly discovered evidence, holding that Appellant failed to satisfy the timeliness requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2103(4).In 2010, Appellant was convicted of second degree assault and use of a weapon to commit a felony and found to be a habitual criminal. In 2016, Appellant filed a second motion for new trial claiming newly discovered evidence under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2101(5). The district court concluded that Appellant was not entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence because his motion and supporting documents failed to set forth sufficient facts. The Supreme Court held (1) the proper standard of review to apply when reviewing a trial court’s dismissal of a motion for a new trial without conducting an evidentiary hearing is de novo on the record; and (2) this court’s de novo review of Appellant’s motion and supporting documents demonstrated that dismissal of the motion without a hearing was proper under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2102(2). View "State v. Cross" on Justia Law

Charissa was pregnant when she married Erin. Several months later, Charissa gave birth to a daughter. Charissa listed Erin as the child’s father on her birth certificate. The parties later separated. One year later, Charissa filed a motion for genetic testing to determine the paternity of the child, which she requested in an effort to rebut the presumption of legitimacy concerning a child born during the marriage. Erin subsequently filed a complaint for dissolution of marriage. The court overruled Charissa’s motion for genetic testing. After a trial, the court entered a decree finding that Charissa had not rebutted the statutory presumption of legitimacy. The court further made an express finding that Erin was the child’s father. The court awarded the parties joint legal and physical custody of the child. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court’s denial of genetic testing was not an abuse of discretion; (2) Charissa failed to rebut at trial the presumption of legitimacy; and (3) the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding joint custody. View "Erin W. v. Charissa W." on Justia Law

The personal representative of James McGauley’s estate brought a wrongful death action against Washington County for the death of McGauley, a quarry worker who was killed while operating a dump truck on a road being built up by Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. on behalf of the County. The district court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against the County, concluding that the discretionary function exception of the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (PSTCA) applied, and therefore, the County had sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the County’s decision to allow Marietta to build up the road was a discretionary function not subject to the PSTCA. View "McGauley v. Washington County" on Justia Law

Appellants Mary and Terry Cohan brought a medical malpractice action against Appellees alleging that Appellees’ negligent treatment caused Mary’s breast cancer to progress undiagnosed for one year, which led to Mary suffering damages from a shortened life expectancy and physical and mental suffering. Appellees moved for a directed verdict on the basis that Appellants failed to make a prima facie case of causation and damages against them. The district court granted the motion, concluding that there was no sufficient proof of damage or causation other than the loss of chance of a lower rate of non-recurrence, which did not constitute a proper measure of damage at the time. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) this court declines to adopt the loss-of-chance doctrine; but (2) Appellants presented evidence that could have sustained a finding for Mary on the issue of damages under the traditional medical malpractice standard. View "Cohan v. Medical Imaging Consultants" on Justia Law

291 Neb. Admin. Code ch. 3, 010.01C does not limit “open class” carriers to providing only prearranged transportation but allows carriers to also operate on a for-hire basis.Golden Plains Services Transportation, Inc. sought a declaratory ruling on the scope of services it could provide as an open class carrier. The Nebraska Public Service Commission interpreted Rule 010.01C to mean that “open class carriers may provide transportation to passengers for hire on a prearranged basis only” and may not “provide on-demand transportation services to passengers for hire.” The Supreme Court reversed and vacated the order releasing the Commission’s interpretation of Rule 010.01C, holding that the Commission’s interpretation was not supported by the language of such rule. View "In re Petition of Golden Plains Services Transportation, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant moved to vacate his conviction for one count of assault in the first degree and withdraw his plea of no contest to the charge, arguing that the district court erred by failing to properly advise him of the immigration consequences of conviction before accepting his plea. The district court overruled Defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of no contest, concluding that that Defendant was advised of an immigration consequence of his plea during the plea colloquy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) under State v. Yos-Chiguil, 772 N.W.2d 574 (Neb. 2009), Defendant proved that instead of reciting the advisement set out in Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1819.02(1), the district court improvised an advisement, and therefore, Defendant established the first Yos-Chiguil factor; but (2) Defendant failed to establish the second Yos-Chiguil factor entitling him to relief, that he was facing an immigration consequence that was not included in the advisement actually given. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea. View "State v. Gach" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sued the State and the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (collectively, the State) after a state employee falsely told them that K.D.M. had no sexual abuse history and, upon K.D.M’s placement in Plaintiffs’ home, K.D.M. sexually assaulted their child. The district court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the State was immune from suit because the employee consciously deceived Plaintiffs and the State Tort Claims Act “specifically excepts from its waiver of governmental immunity claims that are based on misrepresentation and deceit.” The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Plaintiffs’ claims arose out of the State employee’s misrepresentation, they were barred. View "Jill B. v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant, who was charged with strangulation of his girlfriend, posted a $5,000 appearance bond. Thereafter, defendant assigned the bond funds to his attorney. The State subsequently filed an affidavit of lien for overdue child support. After Defendant was convicted of the crime for which he was charged he filed a motion to release the funds to his attorney. The district court overruled the motion. Defendant appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as premature, holding that because the district court’s order did not affect a substantial right, it was not a final, appealable order. View "State v. McColery" on Justia Law