Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The City of Springfield filed suit against the City of Papillion, and Sarpy County, seeking to enjoin Papillion from annexing land which had been indicated as Springfield’s area of future growth in a map adopted by the County in 1995. The district court for Sarpy County found that Springfield lacked standing; Springfield appealed. After review, the Nebraska Supreme Court found that Springfield asserted an infringement of its statutory governmental functions and rights under the County Industrial Sewer Construction Act. That infringement was sufficient to grant standing. The Court reversed the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "City of Springfield v. City of Papillion" on Justia Law

A police officer discovered Bruce Rask asleep in the cab of his running pickup truck. Rask was ultimately charged with several offenses including driving under the influence (third offense). A jury later found him guilty, and on appeal, the district court affirmed. Rask appealed, raising six points of error at trial. Finding no merit to any of these claims, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Nebraska v. Rask" on Justia Law

In 2011, the City of Omaha enacted an ordinance requiring contractors doing work within the City to obtain a license. Appellant challenged the ordinance on various grounds. As relevant on appeal, Appellant alleged that the passage of the ordinance did not comply with the procedural requirements of the Omaha City Charter, that the ordinance placed an unfair restriction on and monopolized the City’s contracting industry, and that the ordinance violated his constitutional rights. The district court granted summary judgment for the City on all but one of Appellant’s claims. After a bench trial, the district court ruled in favor of the City, concluding that the City was empowered to enact the ordinance and that the ordinance did not prevent Appellant from working on his own property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the City had the authority to enact the ordinance. View "Malone v. City of Omaha" on Justia Law

In 1984, the State charged Defendant with the murder of his grandmother for hiring her killing. After a stipulated bench trial, the district court found Defendant guilty of second degree murder. The district court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal. In 2012, Defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging, inter alia, ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and prejudicial conduct by the trial judge. The district court denied the motion after a limited evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for postconviction relief. View "State v. Saylor" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of murder in the first degree, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court committed several errors in its evidentiary rulings and that there was insufficient evidence to support her convictions because of a lack of physical evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s assignments of error relating to the district court’s evidentiary rulings were without merit; and (2) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s convictions. View "State v. Jenkins" on Justia Law

Mother and Father divorced pursuant to a decree that granted Mother full custody of the parties' two daughters, with regular visitation for Father. Almost a decade later, Mother filed an application to modify visitation. Father counterclaimed, seeking full custody of the parties’ children on the ground that Mother’s current spouse resided with and had unsupervised access to the children and is a registered sex offender due to a felony involving his minor stepdaughter. The district court denied Mother’s application to modify and denied Father’s counterclaim. Father filed a petition for further review. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Mother met her statutory burden to produce evidence that her spouse was not a significant risk to the girls; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the girls were not at significant risk. View "Hopkins v. Hopkins" on Justia Law

Lawrence Bixenmann tripped and fell on a stake that the owner of Dickinson Land Surveyors (Dickinson) had placed on the property of Lawrence and Norma Bixenmann while performing a land survey. The Bixenmanns brought this negligence action against Dickinson. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Dickinson, concluding that the Bixenmanns were required to present expert testimony as to the standard of care required of surveyors and that the “common knowledge” exception to the requirement of expert testimony did not apply. The Supreme Court affirmed, albeit on a different ground, holding that there was no privity of contract between the Bixenmanns and Dickinson and no facts establishing a duty to the Bixenmanns, and therefore, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Dickinson. View "Bixenmann v. Dickinson Land Surveyors, Inc." on Justia Law

This action began in 1998, when the State filed a complaint on the relation of the State Department of Insurance, which was appointed as receiver of an insolvent insurance company. The case reached the Supreme Court at least three times - in 1999, 2005, and 2008. In 2015, the district court entered an order sanctioning William Gast, who represented some defendants, for filing a frivolous motion to recuse. On appeal, Gast challenged the district court’s jurisdiction to enter the order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court had jurisdiction to sanction Gast for filing a frivolous motion. View "State ex rel. Dep’t of Ins. v. Countrywide Truck Ins. Agency" on Justia Law

At the center of this dispute was defective rebar that was incorporated into the construction of concrete pile caps that would form support for the Pinnacle Bank Arena. Some of the pile caps had to be modified in order to provide the necessary structural support for the Arena. The general contractor paid the costs of the correction and sought reimbursement from Drake-Williams Steel, Inc. (DWS), which fabricated the rebar. DWS reimbursed the general contractor and sought coverage from its insurers. The insurers denied the claim and commenced this action to determine their obligations under the policies of insurance. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurers. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no coverage under the policies. View "Drake-Williams Steel, Inc. v. Continental Cas. Co." on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and sentenced to probation. On appeal, Defendant challenged the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress and in finding sufficient evidence to convict him. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress, as the totality of the circumstances demonstrated that Defendant’s interaction with law enforcement was a tier-one police-citizen encounter, that Defendant consented to the search, and that the officer discontinued the search after Defendant’s withdrew his consent; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to convict Defendant. View "State v. Milos" on Justia Law