Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted of knowing and intentional child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury for abusing his girlfriend’s three-year-old daughter. The court of appeals reversed Defendant’s conviction and vacated his sentence, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction, and the Double Jeopardy Clause barred retrial. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding (1) the evidence was legally sufficient to support the conviction; (2) there was no abuse of discretion in Defendant’s sentence of fifteen to thirty years’ imprisonment; and (3) there was no merit to Defendant’s remaining assignments of error. View "State v. Olbricht" on Justia Law

Appellant pled no contest pursuant to a plea agreement to distribution of a controlled substance, a Class III felony. After a hearing, the district court imposed four years of probation. On appeal, Appellant challenged the terms of probation, arguing that the district court exceeded its authority by sentencing him to 180 days’ incremental jail time as part of his sentence of probation, contingent upon any potential future violations of the terms of probation. The Supreme Court agreed with Appellant and vacated the disputed portion of his sentence, holding that, at the time of sentencing, the court had no statutory authority to impose jail time, conditional or otherwise, as part of a sentence of probation for Appellant, a felony offender. Remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Kantaras" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and two counts of use of a weapon to commit a felony. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions and sentences on direct appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging various claims of actual innocence, ineffective assistance of trial counsel, ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, trial court error, and prosecutorial misconduct. The district court dismissed Appellant’s petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that either Appellant’s claims failed to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate a violation of his constitutional rights or were procedurally barred, or the record showed Defendant was entitled to no relief. View "State v. Dubray" on Justia Law

After a jury-waived trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree sexual assault committed while he was a juvenile. The district court sentenced Defendant to one year’s imprisonment, ordered him to register under Sex Offender Registration Act for life, and found that Defendant was subject to lifetime community supervision. Defendant appealed, arguing that the lifetime requirements were cruel and unusual punishments because he was a juvenile while the crime was committed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in (1) sentencing Defendant to lifetime sex offender registration and lifetime community supervision when he committed the aggravated offense as a juvenile; and (2) sentencing Defendant to lifetime community supervision. View "State v. Boche" on Justia Law

In June 2015, Defendant committed domestic assault of a pregnant female. In August 2015, the Legislature’s enactment of L.B. 605, which changed many sentencing provisions, became effective. One of L.B. 605’s provisions requires courts to impose a sentence of probation for Class IV felony convictions unless an exception applies. This requirement is codified as Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2204.02(2). In November 2015, the district court sentenced Defendant to a term of twelve to eighteen months’ incarceration for a Class IV felony conviction of domestic assault of a pregnant female. Defendant appealed, arguing that the court erred in failing to apply section 29-2204.02 in sentencing him and in sentencing him to a term of incarceration instead of probation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) was not required retroactively to apply the sentencing requirements under section 29-2204.02; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence of incarceration instead of probation. View "State v. Benavides" on Justia Law

Kristina Hartley filed a gender discrimination action against Metropolitan Utilities District of Omaha (MUD) under the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act (NFEPA), alleging that she was not promoted because of gender discrimination and that MUD’s stated reasons for promoting a male colleague instead of her were pretextual. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Hartley. The district court awarded Hartley $56,800 for attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in excluding post promotional performance evaluations of Hartley; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict; and (3) the attorney fees awarded to Hartley were not excessive. View "Hartley v. Metropolitan Utilities District of Omaha" on Justia Law

A holdover franchisee is a franchisee who receives the benefits of an expired franchise agreement but fails to make payments to the franchisor per the agreement. Donut Holdings, Inc. (DHI) was the Nebraska parent corporation of LaMar’s Donuts International, Inc. (LaMar’s). LaMar’s was a franchise company with nine franchisees, including one in Springfield Missouri that was purchased by Risberg Stores, LLC, a Missouri entity, in 2002. At the time of the purchase, the store was operating under the terms of a 1994 franchise agreement entered into by Risberg Store’s predecessor. DHI filed a claim against Risberg Stores for royalty and marketing fees accruing after June 2009. Risberg Stores argued that it did not owe DHI fees because the parties’ written agreement ended in 2004. The district court ruled in favor of Risberg Stores, concluding that the franchise agreement ended in June 2009 and that DHI was not entitled to any payments thereafter. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) DHI, the franchisor, did not have a breach of contract claim against Risberg Stores, the holdover franchisee; and (2) therefore, DHI was not entitled to fees under the contract. View "Donut Holdings, Inc. v. Risberg" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded no contest to criminal mischief, a Class IV felony. After a hearing, the district court sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment of twenty to forty months. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court (1) erred by failing to retroactively apply statutory amendments from 2015 Neb. Laws, L.B. 605, and (2) abused its discretion by sentencing him to a term of incarceration rather than a term of probation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the changes set forth by L.B. 605 did not apply to Defendant; and (2) the district court did not err in sentencing Defendant to a term of imprisonment. View "State v. Raatz" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a trooper with the Nebraska State Patrol, was an applicant for a lateral transfer to the position of “Executive Protection Trooper.” After another applicant was awarded the position, Plaintiff filed a public records request under Neb. Rev. Stat. 84-712 seeking records relating to the interview and selection process for the Executive Protection Trooper position. The State Patrol denied Plaintiff’s request. Plaintiff sought a writ of mandamus in the district court again seeking the records that were the subject of his public records request. The trial court denied Plaintiff’s petition, concluding that the records could be withheld under section 84-712.05(7). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Plaintiff’s petition for writ of mandamus because the records Plaintiff sought to view were exempted under section 84-712.05(7). View "Steckelberg v. Nebraska State Patrol" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI), fourth offense, with refusal to submit to a chemical test, and for driving during revocation. The court of appeals affirmed. Defendant petitioned for further review, arguing that the district court erred in overruling his motion for mistrial because the State violated due process and the state and federal constitutions by improperly commenting during closing arguments on Defendant’s pretrial silence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, although the prosecutor’s closing remarks about Defendant’s postarrest, pre-Miranda silence were questionable, they did not prejudice his right to a fair trial. View "State v. Mitchell" on Justia Law