Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a weapon to commit a felony. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences on appeal. Defendant subsequently filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief, generally alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The district court denied Defendant’s motion for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it found there was no merit to each of Defendant’s claims and denied his motion for postconviction relief without granting an evidentiary hearing. View "State v. Starks" on Justia Law

In 2014, Wife filed a complaint to dissolve her marriage from husband. After the district court entered a decree of dissolution, both parties appealed. The issues on appeal related primarily to the district court’s division of the property was proper. Specifically, the parties challenged the court’s determination of whether a cattle herd and certain other assets and debts associated therewith should be included in the marital estate. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the district court’s ruling treating Wife’s fifty-percent interests in three LLCs as martial property and dividing them between the parties; (2) reversed and struck the decree’s finding related to the debts associated with the LLCs; and (3) affirmed the district court’s determination that the cattle operation was Husband’s separate property. View "Sellers v. Sellers" on Justia Law

RM Campbell Industrial, Inc. entered into a contract with Randall Kramer for construction work on an ethanol plant. The terms of the contract indicated that the contract was between Campbell and KL Process Design Group, LLC. Midwest Renewable Energy, LLC, paid the invoices. When Midwest stopped making payments and KL Process ceased work on the project, Campbell filed suit against Midwest for breach of contract. After a trial, the jury found for Campbell in the amount of $154,510.98. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) concluding that there was sufficient evidence for a jury question in whether KL Process acted as an agent of Midwest in entering into the subcontract with Campbell and whether there was an enforceable contract between Midwest and Campbell; and (2) not finding that Campbell had to prove substantial compliance with the subcontract and not instructing the jury on this. View "RM Campbell Indus. v. Midwest Renewable Energy, LLC" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of attempted second degree murder, first degree assault, and use of a weapon to commit a felony. The Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant was entitled to a new trial at which the jury could be instructed on the distinction between second degree murder and voluntary sudden quarrel manslaughter. The district court subsequently granted Defendant’s motion for new counsel. Defendant then pled no contest to the amended charge of attempted voluntary manslaughter. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging several claims of error. The district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing despite Defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; (2) Defendant’s allegation that the district court erred in hearing his claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel at the hearing on his motion for new counsel prior to his motion for postconviction relief had no merit; and (3) there was no plain error. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

In two separate garnishment proceedings, Appellants, judgment creditors, served garnishment interrogatories on the judgment debtors’ attorney (Attorney). Appellants did not challenge Attorney’s answers in the first garnishment proceeding but filed an application to determine Attorney’s garnishment liability in response to Attorney’s answers in the second garnishment proceeding. The district court overruled Appellants’ motion to determine garnishment liability, concluding that because Appellants did not move to determine Attorney’s liability after he responded to the first garnishment interrogatories, he was released and discharged as to the property sought and that the property could not be sought again by Appellants in the second garnishment proceeding based on claim preclusion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it overruled Appellants’ motion to determine Attorney’s garnishment liability in the second garnishment proceeding. View "Huntington v. Pedersen" on Justia Law