Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

On March 9, 2013, Stephen Kelly suffered a fall from his home. Stephen was treated at Saint Francis Medical Center by Dr. Jeff Burwell. Stephen died on March 16. On March 10, 2015, Ann Kelly filed, on her own behalf and on behalf of Stephen’s estate, a pro se wrongful death action against Saint Francis and Burwell. On September 1, 2015, Ann filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Ann retained counsel for her amended complaint.The district court denied Ann’s motion and dismissed the action as untimely, concluding that the original complaint filed by Ann was a nullity and that an amended complaint cannot relate back to something that never existed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that the prior complaint was a nullity and that an amended complaint could not relate back to the filing of the original pro se complaint. View "Kelly v. Saint Francis Medical Center" on Justia Law

Guardian Tax Partners Inc. purchased, at a treasurer’s tax sale, a one percent interest in certain Douglas County real estate owned by Skrupa Investment Company. Guardian subsequently recorded a treasurer’s tax deed to the real estate interest. Thereafter, Guardian filed a complaint for partition against Skrupa Investment and Frank and Mary Skrupa. In their answer, Skrupa Investment and Frank alleged that Guardian’s tax deed was invalid due to Guardian’s failure to give the required statutory notice to the record owner. Skrupa Investment also filed a counterclaim to quiet title, claiming 100 percent interest in the property. On July 24, 2015, the district court entered an order finding that the tax deed was valid and determining that Guardian owned a one percent interest and Skrupa Investment owned a ninety-nine percent interest in the real estate. Upon Skrupa Investment’s motion, the district court certified the July 24 order as final and appealable. Skrupa Investment then appealed from the July 24 order. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Skrupa Investment’s appeal was out of time because the July 24, 2015 order was a final, appealable order not subject to certification under Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-1315. View "Guardian Tax Partners, Inc. v. Skrupa Investment Co." on Justia Law

Raven Addy-Cruz was killed in an automobile accident caused by Lyle Carman. Carman was employed by Lopez Trucking. Lopez Trucking had been hired by Werner Construction (Werner) to haul debris from a construction site. Addy-Cruz’s estate filed a wrongful death suit against Carman, the owner of Lopez Trucking (Lopez), and Werner. Summary judgment was entered in favor of Werner. The estate, Carman, and Lopez then entered a joint stipulation to dismiss without prejudice. Thereafter, the estate filed a notice of appeal from the order sustaining summary judgment in favor of Werner. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the estate’s voluntary dismissal of the cause of action without prejudice did not create a final order from which an appeal could be brought. View "Addy v. Lopez" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment on the murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions and sentences. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se motion and an amended motion for postconviction relief. The district court denied relief without holding an evidentiary hearing, concluding that the issues raised in the motions for postconviction relief were known and/or knowable at the time of Appellant’s direct appeal. The court further denied Appellant’s motions for appointment of counsel, to proceed in forma pauperis, and for recusal. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that that Appellant was entitled to an evidentiary hearings on two of his claims. The Court also directed the district court to grant Appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel. View "State v. Ely" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of two counts of first degree murder. Appellant was sentenced to life without parole on both counts. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. This appeal concerned Appellant’s second motion for postconviction relief. The district court partially granted the successive postconviction motion without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the cause with directions to overrule Appellant’s second motion for posconviction relief, holding (1) the district court erred in granting postconviction relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing; but (2) Appellant was not entitled to a hearing on his claims either because he failed to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate a violation of his constitutional rights or because the record showed he was entitled to no relief. Remanded with directions to overrule Appellant’s second motion for postconviction relief. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from two consolidated appeals from proceedings in the county court. The first appeal was from the court’s final order appointing a conservator for Marcia Abbott, and the second was from the court’s order that acted both as a judgment in a trustee removal proceeding and as a final order denying fees and expenses in the conservatorship proceeding. The Supreme Court (1) dismissed the first appeal and dismissed the cross-appeal to the extent it pertained to the first appeal, holding that the conservatorship appointment order became moot upon Marcia’s death while the first appeal was pending; and (2) affirmed the remaining trust and conservatorship issues, including the order removing the successor trustee, declining to surcharge him, disposing of competing attorney fee applications, and otherwise disposing of the trust and conservatorship proceedings. View "In re Conservatorship of Abbott" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled guilty to attempted possession of a controlled substance and driving under the influence. The district court sentenced Defendant to two jail sentences, to be served consecutively. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying him probation based solely on “its erroneous interpretation that his immigration status prohibited probation.” The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court relied on more than just Defendant’s undocumented status when imposing sentence; (2) the court properly considered probation but found Defendant to be an inappropriate candidate; and (3) the court did not abuse its discretion in deciding not to place Defendant on probation for his convictions. View "State v. Cerritos-Valdez" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of two counts of first degree felony murder and other crimes. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for each first degree murder. The Supreme Court vacated Appellant’s life sentences under Miller v. Alabama and also vacated his other sentences because the sentencing court committed plain error by ordering some sentences to run concurrently with other sentences. After a hearing, Appellant was resentenced in accordance with established law. Appellant appealed his resentencing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in the sentences it imposed upon Appellant; (2) the aggregate of Appellant’s sentences did not constitute a de facto life sentence, and Appellant received the protections required by Miller for a juvenile convicted of a homicide offense; (3) the district court did not impose an aggregate de facto life sentence; and (4) Appellant’s resentencing was not presumptively vindictive. View "State v. Castaneda" on Justia Law

After Loyola Kaiser’s husband, Albert Kaiser, died, Heartland Trust Company, as Loyola’s conservator, filed an application in the county court seeking authority to file the elective share it argued was due to Loyola as Albert’s surviving spouse. The county court denied the application. Heartland appealed, arguing that the county court’s decision to deny its application did not conform to the law, was not supported by competent evidence, and was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the county court did not err when it denied Heartland’s request for authorizing to file for the elective share of Albert’s estate on Loyola’s behalf. View "In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Kaiser" on Justia Law

Defendant pled no contest to possession of a controlled substance and unlawful acts relating to drugs. After a sentencing hearing, the district court found that Defendant was not a suitable candidate for probation and therefore sentenced her to terms of imprisonment for each conviction to be served concurrent with one another. Defendant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the district court did not follow Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2204.02, enacted as part of 2015 Neb. Laws L.B. 605, when it found that Defendant was not a suitable candidate for probation with regard to the possession conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it overruled Defendant’s motion to continue sentencing; and (2) the court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that there were substantial and compelling reasons that Defendant could not effectively and safely be supervised in the community on probation. View "State v. Baxter" on Justia Law