Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of discharging a firearm at an inhabited house, occupied building, or occupied vehicle and use of a weapon to commit a felony. The court of appeals affirmed on appeal. Thereafter, Defendant filed a verified motion for postconviction relief, alleging that his appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance. The district court denied relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for postconviction relief, as Defendant failed to show he was entitled to relief on his claims; and (2) did not err in failing to allow Defendant to amend his pleadings postjudgment or utilize an improper procedure. View "State v. Robertson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. In this appeal, Defendant's third appeal to the Supreme Court, Defendant argued that he was denied due process by the State’s knowing use of fabricated evidence to obtain his convictions and that his trial counsel acted under an actual conflict of interest during Defendant’s trial and the pendency of his direct appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of relief, holding that the district court did not err in (1) finding that the State did not knowingly use fabricated evidence to obtain Defendant’s convictions; and (2) finding that Defendant’s trial counsel did not operate under a conflict of interest. View "State v. Edwards" on Justia Law

In 1985, Appellant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In 2015, Appellant filed a second postconviction motion to set aside the conviction and sentence and/or a writ of error coram nobis. The district court denied Appellant’s error coram nobis request and overruled his motion for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in overruling Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief because the motion was not timely filed; and (2) the district court properly denied Appellant’s request for a writ of error coram nobis, as Appellant only asserted errors of law, and a writ of error coram nobis is not available to correct errors of law. View "State v. Harrison" on Justia Law

Jesse, the legal father of Jaelyn under Ohio statutes, challenged the adoption of Jaelyn in Nebraska. In this appeal, Jesse specifically challenged the constitutionality of several Nebraska statutes, including statutes that permitted Jaelyn to be adopted without his consent. Jesse also argued that Nebraska must give full faith and credit to Ohio’s paternity determination. Under Ohio law, Jesse had the right to withhold consent to the adoption of Jaelyn. After the county court issued an adoption decree, the district court declined to grant habeas relief, determining that Jesse lost standing to challenge the adoption after the county court found that Jesse was not Jaelyn’s biological father. The Supreme Court reversed without addressing Jesse’s constitutional challenges, holding that the district court erred in failing to determine that Nebraska must give full faith and credit to Ohio’s determination of Jesse’s paternity. Remanded. View "Jesse B. v. Tylee H." on Justia Law

A Bank filed an action against four Guarantors on their personal guaranties of an LLC’s debts. That action resulted in three appeals by the Guarantors. The first appeal was generated after the district court granted the Bank’s motions for summary judgment but failed to adjudicate a cross-claim. The second appeal was taken from execution and garnishment proceedings that occurred while the first appeal was pending. The third appeal was taken after one Guarantor moved to vacate the summary judgment order and the district court denied the motion and dismissed the pending cross-claim. The Supreme Court vacated the final orders in the second appeal and affirmed the judgment in the third appeal, holding (1) the execution and garnishment proceedings were void because they were commenced prior to judgment; and (2) the district court correctly overruled the Guarantor’s motion to vacate the summary judgment order. View "Cattle Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. v. Watson" on Justia Law

Jesse, the legal father of Jaelyn under Ohio statutes, challenged the adoption of Jaelyn in Nebraska. Jesse attempted to intervene to challenge the county court’s authority to exercise jurisdiction of the adoption proceeding, arguing that Nebraska must give full faith and credit to Ohio’s determination of his paternity and that the county court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because he did not consent to Jaelyn’s adoption. The county court did not allow Jesse to intervene and issued an adoption decree, concluding that Nebraska’s adoption statutes did not require Jesse’s consent to the adoption because genetic testing showed that another man was Jaelyn’s father. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the county court erred in failing to give full faith and credit to Ohio’s determination of Jesse’s paternity; and (2) the county court erred in exercising jurisdiction over this adoption petition because Jesse did not consent to the adoption. Remanded with directions for the county court to vacate its decree. View "In re Adoption of Jaelyn B." on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought an employment discrimination suit against her former employers, alleging that she had been unlawfully terminated in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA). The district court granted partial summary judgment for Pierce on the issue of whether the employers were “integrated” for purposes of the FMLA. After an ensuing trial, the jury returned a verdict on both the FMLA and the ADAAA claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in granting partial summary judgment and finding as a matter of law that the employers were integrated for purposes of the FMLA; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling on Plaintiff’s motions in limine; and (3) there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict. View "Pierce v. Landmark Mgmt. Group" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded no contest to obstructing government operations for interfering the prosecution of a city employee in order to prevent the employee from being fired. The county court found Defendant guilty, sentenced him to thirty days in jail, and ordered him to pay $55 in court costs. The district court affirmed and conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by (1) affirming the county court’s findings that there was sufficient factual basis to support the conviction; (2) finding that the amended complaint was adequate; and (3) finding that Defendant’s sentence was not excessive. View "State v. Wilkinson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. The district court sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment from five to fifteen years. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence, holding (1) the district court did not err in allowing the State to present on rebuttal extrinsic evidence of a prior incident in order to impeach Defendant’s testimony which he presented in his own defense; (2) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s conviction; and (3) the district court did not impose an excessive sentence. View "State v. Carpenter" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding, among other things, that the trial court did not err by (1) denying Defendant’s motion to suppress; (2) admitting into evidence journal entries written by Defendant while incarcerated for another crime; (3) not excluding the testimony of certain witnesses on the grounds that Defendant was presented with a “Hobson’s choice” of either conducting effective cross-examination that would bring to light other bad acts or not conducting an effective cross-examination; and (4) giving Defendant a life sentence. View "State v. Oldson" on Justia Law