Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

A passenger who threw beer out of the window of a vehicle fleeing from law enforcement was not an innocent third party.Dillon Fales and Bryant Irish - both minors - had consumed beer at a party and then left in a pickup truck, which Irish drove. When a law enforcement officer activated his emergency lights in an attempt to initiate a traffic stop, Irish accelerated the pickup. Fales then threw an unopened thirty-pack box of beer out of the window. The pickup eventually left the roadway and crashed, leaving Fales paralyzed from the chest down. False sued the County of Staton, alleging that he was an innocent third party and that the County was strictly liable to him by operation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 13-911. The district court entered judgment in favor of the County, concluding that False failed to sustain his burden to prove that he qualified as an innocent third party. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that when Fales threw the box of beer out of the window of Irish’s fleeing pickup, False became a subject of the pursuit, thereby disqualifying him as an innocent third party. View "Fales v. County of Stanton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s resentencing for his first degree murder conviction. Defendant was found guilty in 2000 and was seventeen years old at the time of the crime. Resentencing was required under Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) and subsequent case law. Defendant was resentenced in accordance with Nebraska statutes to sixty to eighty years’ imprisonment with credit for the days that he had served. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court imposed an excessive sentence because it failed properly to consider the applicable legal principles. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant’s sentence was in accordance with both Miller and Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-105.02. Accordingly, Defendant’s additional arguments were without merit. View "State v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Appellants, the parents and special administrators of the estate of Melissa Rodriguez, who was killed by Michael Loyd, brought this negligence and wrongful death action against numerous defendants. The defendants were treated as three groups - the Lasting Hope defendants, the UNMC defendants, and the City defendants. Appellants claimed that the defendants were negligent in failing to protect Melissa from Loyd. The district court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss the second amended complaint. On appeal, Appellants challenged the dismissal of the Lasting Hope and the UNMC defendants. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court (1) erred when it dismissed Appellants’ second amended complaint for failure to state a claim with respect to the Lasting Hope defendants; and (2) erred when it denied Appellants’ motion to amend the second amended complaint to add allegations relative to the UNMC defendants and dismissed the UNMC defendants. View "Rodriguez v. Catholic Health Initiatives" on Justia Law

Norman Kroemer, an employee of Ribbon Weld, LLC sustained an eye injury in connection with the use of Omaha Track Equipment, LLC’s (OTE) tools. Kroemer and Ribbon Weld entered into a compromise lump-sum settlement for $80,000. After payment of the lump sum, Ribbon Weld’s subrogation interest totaled just over $200,000. Kroemer then sued OTE and Ribbon Weld. Kroemer and OTE engaged in mediation to settle the third-party claim and ultimately negotiated a compromise settlement of claims in the amount of $150,000. The district court determined that the settlement was reasonable and allocated $0 to Ribbon Weld. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and in part reversed and remanded, holding (1) the district court’s approval of the settlement was not an abuse of discretion under the circumstances; but (2) the district court did abuse its discretion in not allocating any of the settlement proceeds to Ribbon Weld. View "Kroemer v. Omaha Track Equipment, LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction, rendered after a jury trial, for possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. Defendant argued, among other things, that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence found during a search with a warrant that was obtained as a result of observing defaced firearms during a prior warrantless search for a possible intruder at the request of a houseguest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the facts reasonably warranted an immediate intrusion of a residence into areas where a burglar might be hiding, and therefore, the trial court did not err in overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress; (2) Defendant was not prejudiced by the admission, without a limiting instruction, of evidence of his drug use around the time specified in the information; and (3) the prosecutor did not commit misconduct during closing arguments. View "State v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his drug-related convictions and sentences, raising several issues. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in admitting testimony regarding drug weights; (2) the district court did not err in admitting into evidence notebooks and notepads - known as “owe notes” - seized from Defendant’s vehicle; (3) there was not anything clearly erroneous or unduly prejudicial in the instructions and admonitions given to the jury; and (4) Defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel did not warrant relief; and (5) Defendant’s remaining assignments of error were without merit. View "State v. Schwaderer" on Justia Law