Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2011, eighty-six-year-old Carl Landgraf executed two joint warranty deeds conveying approximately 1,000 acres of farmland to Gail Neumeister and Marlene Neumeister. In 2012, Landgraf executed deeds to fix an error in the earlier deeds. After Landgraf’s death, Clarence Mock, as special administrator of Landgraf’s estate, sued the Neumeisters, alleging that the deeds were the product of undue influence and should be set aside. Following a trial, the district court found in favor of the Neumeisters on the claim of undue influence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Mock did not meet his burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that the deeds were the result of undue influence. View "Mock v. Neumeister" on Justia Law

The State filed juvenile petitions alleging that the three children of Mother and Father came within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-247(3)(a) due to the faults and habits of their parents. The juvenile court found the allegations of the petitions were true as to every child. The orders of adjudication placed custody of the children with the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and ordered speech and language and early childhood development assessments for two of the children. Mother and Father, however, refused to complete consent forms necessary to authorize the assessments ordered by the court. Consequently, the court appointed an “educational surrogate” for both children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the juvenile court did not err in ordering Mother and Father to show cause why they should not be held in contempt and subsequently appointing an education surrogate while the adjudications were pending in the Court of Appeals; and (2) the orders appointing an educational surrogate were not imposed as a sanction for civil contempt. View "In re Interest of Becka P." on Justia Law

The Nebraska Department of Revenue and the acting Tax Commissioner denied, in part, the requested refunds of Farmers Cooperative and Frontier Cooperative Co. (collectively, the Cooperatives). The district court affirmed. The Cooperatives sought refunds of sales and use taxes paid on the purchase of repairs and parts for agricultural machinery and equipment under Neb. Rev. Stat. 77-2708.01. At issue in these consolidated appeals was how the phrase “depreciable repairs or parts” within section 77-2708.01 should be interpreted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in affirming the partial denial of the Cooperatives’ requested refunds based upon its interpretation of section 77-2708.01. View "Farmers Cooperative v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. This appeal concerned Defendant’s third amended motion for postconviction relief, in which Defendant alleged that his convictions were procured through prosecutorial misconduct, that the prosecutor improperly misrepresented the nature of Defendant’s plea agreement, and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The postconviction court overruled the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) the State’s duty to disclose favorable evidence did not apply to information it received after Defendant was convicted and sentenced; (2) the court applied wrong standards in determining that the State did not violate its duty to disclose information about a certain witness; (3) the court erred in failing to accurately set forth which motion for postconviction relief it intended to address; and (4) Defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was procedurally barred. View "State v. Harris" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree sexual assault, first degree false imprisonment, strangulation, and third degree domestic assault. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Defendant later filed a motion for return of seized property. At the hearing, the State argued that Defendant had a pending postconviction motion and a pending federal prosecution for child pornography and that many of the items that Defendant pled in his motion were subject to that case. The district court denied the motion to return property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion to return seized property; (2) the district judge did not abuse its discretion in failing to parse through the property and determine what portion of the seized evidence would be necessary for the pending proceedings and return the portion that would not be necessary; and (3) Defendant’s arguments that the district court judge was biased were without merit. View "State v. Buttercase" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were three same-sex couples who sought to enjoin Defendants from enforcing a 1995 administrative memorandum and from restricting gay and lesbian individuals and couples from being considered or selected as foster or adoptive parents. Plaintiffs generally alleged that the policy violated equal protection and due process and violated 42 U.S.C. 1983. The court ordered the memorandum rescinded and stricken and enjoined Defendants and those acting in concert with them from enforcing the memorandum and/or applying a categorical ban such as the one at issue in this case. Defendants appealed, arguing that Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring this case, that there was no case or controversy, and that the lawsuit became moot when the policy memorandum was removed from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) website after Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was filed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the underlying action was justiciable; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding costs and attorney fees. View "Stewart v. Heineman" on Justia Law

The Nebraska Cooperative Republican Platte Enhancement (N-CORPE), a political subdivision of the State of Nebraska, brought condemnation proceedings against Appellant seeking an easement across Appellant’s real estate. In response, Appellant filed a complaint for injunction against board members of the N-CORPE project and N-CORPE (collectively, Appellees), alleging, inter alia, that N-CORPE does not have the power of eminent domain. In addition, Appellant filed an application for temporary restraining order and a motion for temporary injunction, both of which the district court denied. The district court then granted Appellees’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) N-CORPE had the authority to exercise the power of eminent domain; (2) N-CORPE did not need certain permits and approvals as alleged by Appellant; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Appellant’s motion to amend the complaint; (4) N-CORPE is not prohibited by common law from removing ground water from overlying land; and (5) there is not material issue of fact regarding whether the condemnation is for a public use. View "Estermann v. Bose" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, as an individual and as an assignee, brought this action pro se to recover for wrongs allegedly committed against the assignor, a limited liability corporation (LLC). The district court dismissed the action, concluding (1) Plaintiff was attempting to litigate “the claim of another which has merely been assigned to him” and that Plaintiff was therefore engaging in the unauthorized practice of law because an attorney is required when the action is derived from a wrong to an LLC; and (2) therefore, the pleadings were a nullity. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) an assignment of a distinct business entity’s cause of action to an assignee who then brings such suit requires that the assignee must be represented by counsel and cannot bring such action pro se; (2) by bringing the assigned claim, Plaintiff engaged in the unauthorized practice of law; and (3) therefore, Plaintiff’s filings were a nullity as a matter of law. View "Zapata v. McHugh" on Justia Law

In two separate cases, Defendant was convicted of two counts of possession of a controlled substance and one count of driving under the influence. In case No. S-16-419, the district court sentenced Defendant to a period of incarceration for twenty months to five years for possession of a controlled substance. In case No. S-16-425, the district court sentenced Defendant to two years’ imprisonment with twelve months of postrelease supervision for possession of a controlled substance and to six months’ incarceration for driving under the influence. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court imposed excessive sentences in both cases. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the judgment in case No. S-16-419; (2) affirmed Defendant’s sentence for driving under the influence in case No. S-16-425; and (3) vacated Defendant’s sentence for possession of a controlled substance in case No. S-16-425 in light of the Court’s application of the doctrine enunciated in State v. Randolph to L.B. 1094. View "State v. Chacon" on Justia Law

The Tax Equalization and Review Commission (TERC) adjusted upward by eight percent the value of the “land use grass” subclass of the agricultural and horticultural land class of real property in Franklin County not receiving special valuation. Franklin County appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed TERC’s order adjusting the Franklin County grassland value upward by eight percent, holding (1) TERC did not err in relying on the statistics prepared by the Property Tax Administrator; (2) there was no merit to Franklin County’s argument that TERC violated Neb. Const. art. VIII by failing to uniformly and proportionally value grasslands in the state; and (3) Franklin County’s remaining assignments of error were without merit. View "County of Franklin v. Tax Equalization & Review Commission" on Justia Law