Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The dispute at the center of this case concerned an intestate estate. On appeal, one of the decedent’s two children argued that the county court erred in (1) approving the final accounting and ordering distribution accordingly, and (2) naming the decedent’s daughter-in-law as an heir at law. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the county court (1) erred when it included certain nonprobate assets in the intestate estate and when it found that the decedent’s daughter-in-law was an heir at law, and (2) did not err in excluding certain assets from the intestate estate. Remanded. View "In re Estate of Balvin" on Justia Law

Appellants privately adopted the younger sister of Nizigiyimana R. (Ziggy) and sought the placement and eventual adoption of Ziggy. Ziggy’s younger sister who was born after Ziggy was removed the mother’s home and placed in the custody of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services but before the court terminated the parental rights of Ziggy’s parents. Appellants sought to intervene, on their daughter’s behalf, in the dependency proceeding, claiming a right to intervene because Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-1311.02 requires the Department to make reasonable efforts for a joint sibling placement. The juvenile court denied Appellants’ leave to intervene, concluding, inter alia, that the Nebraska statutes implementing the federal Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act did not give appellants or their daughter any cognizable interests in the dependency proceeding. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the juvenile court correctly denied Appellants leave to intervene in this dependency proceeding. View "In re Interest of Nizigiyimana R." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the evidence was insufficient to support Defendant’s conviction because the evidence established that the handgun at issue was not within Defendant’s immediate physical reach at the time he was stopped in a traffic stop. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals erred in reversing Defendant’s conviction on the basis of insufficient evidence because the jury could have found that the handgun was on or about Defendant’s person, even though it was not within his reach while driving. View "State v. Senn" on Justia Law

Bruce Evertson was killed in a two-vehicle accident during the course and scope of his employment. Bruce’s estate filed a wrongful death claim against the insurer of the other driver. The county court accepted a settlement in the matter and allocated the proceeds among Bruce’s widow, Darla Evertson, and adult children. Darla received workers’ compensation benefits from Travelers Indemnity Company as a result of Bruce’s death. Travelers filed a subrogation claim to Darla’s settlement proceeds. The county court ordered that Travelers was not entitled to any distribution of Darla’s proceeds and did not provide Travelers any future credit against the workers’ compensation benefits it owed Darla. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals and remanded with directions to vacate the order of the county court, holding that the county court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear and decide the subrogation matter. View "In re Estate of Evertson" on Justia Law

In 1987, Defendant murdered his twelve-year-old sister. Defendant was fourteen years old at the time of the murder. Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In 2013, Defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief, arguing that his sentence was cruel and unusual punishment in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Miller v. Alabama. The district court vacated Defendant’s life sentence, finding that the sentence was within the parameters of the holding in Miller, that the rule in Miller applies retroactively, and that Defendant was therefore entitled to postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the relevant sentencing scheme mandated life imprisonment without the possibility for parole, the district court was bound by Miller. Remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Thieszen" on Justia Law

After Child was born to Mother, Appellant agreed to care for Child until Mother was able to do so. Child was later returned to Mother but was subsequently placed temporarily with Appellant by order of the district court. Appellant filed a complaint seeking custody of Child, alleging that she stood in loco parentis to Child. After a custody trial, the district court awarded custody of Child to Appellant and awarded unsupervised visitation to Mother, finding this arrangement to be in the best interests of Child and consistent with parental preference. Mother appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it granted custody of Child to Appellant. View "Windham v. Griffin" on Justia Law

Sandrino T. and Remus M. were each charged in the juvenile court with six counts of ATM “skimming.” In each case, the State moved to transfer to county court. The juvenile court granted the motions. Both Sandrino and Remus appealed. The Supreme Court consolidated the cases on appeal for disposition. The Court then dismissed each appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the orders transferring the cases from juvenile court to county court were not final and appealable because the transfer of the cases from juvenile court to criminal court did not affect the substantial rights of Sandrino and Remus. View "In re Sandrino T." on Justia Law

Bank foreclosed its loan on residential real estate and resold the property to Buyers. The purchase agreement for the transaction contained an arbitration clause. After Buyers learned that another bank had a superior lien against the real estate they sued Bank for damages. Bank filed a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the purchase agreement. The district court sustained the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the purchase agreement was governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, and Buyers’ claims were subject to the arbitration clause; and (2) there was no merit to Buyers’ other arguments. View "Wilczewski v. Charter West National Bank" on Justia Law

In 1971, David Rice was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In 2012, Rice filed a successive petition for postconviction relief. The petition was filed on Rice’s behalf by attorney Timothy Ashford. Ashford also filed on behalf of Rice a motion to appoint counsel on the basis that Rice was indigent. The court did not rule on the motion to appoint counsel prior to denying postconviction relief. Thereafter, the court entered an order finding that Rice should be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis and appointed Ashford as Rice’s counsel. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed. Thereafter, Ashford filed an application for the allowance of expenses and fees associated with the appeal. The district court denied the application, concluding that the claims for postconviction relief were frivolous, as was the appeal. Ashford appealed. While the appeal was pending, Rice died. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) no substitution of parties was necessary as a result of Rice’s death; and (2) because the district court appointed Ashford as postconviction counsel, the court was statutorily required to fix reasonable expenses and fees. View "State v. Rice" on Justia Law

The State filed an information charging Defendant, a Nebraska prisoner, with assault by a confined person. Defendant later filed two motions seeking relief under the speedy trial provisions of two different legislative acts. Specifically, Defendant filed a motion requesting absolute discharge under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1207 and a motion seeking to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-3805. The district court denied defendant’s motions, concluding that neither time limit required dismissal at the time Defendant filed his motions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the speedy trial provisions of section 29-1207 had no application to Defendant; (2) the district court did not clearly err in determining that courtroom unavailability established good cause to extend the time in which to try Defendant; and (3) because the time to try Defendant had not expired when he filed his motion to dismiss the case, the district court properly overruled Defendant’s motion. View "State v. Kolbjornsen" on Justia Law