Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Pittman filed a negligence action for injuries he sustained when he was struck by a vehicle while standing in or near a parking lot owned and maintained by 2nd Street. The driver of the vehicle was Rivera, another patron who had been forcibly removed from 2nd Street earlier that evening by an employee of 2nd Street. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that Rivera’s conduct in striking Pittman with his vehicle was not reasonably foreseeable and that therefore, 2nd Street did not breach its duty of reasonable care. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, agreeing that 2nd Street owed a general duty based on premises liability and that when Rivera returned to the premises, driving a vehicle, it was not reasonably foreseeable that Rivera would use his vehicle to assault Pittman. View "Pittman v. Rivera" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second degree murder and use of a deadly weapon. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions on direct appeal. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The State filed a motion to deny an evidentiary hearing on Defendant’s motion, and the district court granted the State’s request. Thereafter, the district court denied postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err by denying an evidentiary hearing where Defendant’s motion did not allege any prejudice due to his trial counsel’s alleged deficient performance; and (2) the district court did not err by denying postconviction relief. View "State v. Abdulkadir" on Justia Law

Bryant Irish was convicted of driving under the influence and causing serious bodily injury. Dillon Fales was the victim of Irish’s crime. Before the court sentenced Irish, Fales sued Stanton County alleging that he was an innocent third party injured by the vehicular pursuit of Irish by Michael Unger, the Stanton County Sheriff. Unger petitioned for a public records writ of mandamus compelling the partial disclosure of Irish’s presentence report containing any statements made by Fales. The district court dismissed Unger’s petition, concluding that Irish’s presentence report was not a public record. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Unger’s petition for a public records writ of mandamus because Irish’s presentence report is not a public record. View "State ex rel. Unger v. State" on Justia Law

Madeline Schmitz and Steven Sickler were divorced in 2001. The property division awarded a percentage of Steven’s individual retirement account to Madeline. Madeline’s percentage had not been transferred to her in the fourteen years since the decree. The district court found Steven in contempt and ordered him to serve a sentence of ninety days’ incarceration. The sentence could be purged by payment of $37,234 to Madeline within a period of seventeen days. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) imprisonment for contempt for failing to comply with the order of property division in a dissolution decree does not violate Neb. Const. art. I, 20; (2) the district court did not err in finding Steven’s conduct to be willful; and (3) the order is modified so as to permit Steven to purge the contempt at any time during his period of incarceration. View "Sickler v. Sickler" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a firearm to commit a felony. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder conviction. Defendant appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding (1) the State presented sufficient evidence for the trial court to find that Defendant killed the victim in an attempt to perpetrate a robbery and that he used a firearm to do so; and (2) therefore, there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s convictions. View "State v. Dortch" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of driving a commercial motor vehicle without obtaining a commercial driver’s license (CDL). Defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction and that the conviction was contrary to law because the combination power unit and hay grinder that he was driving was not a commercial motor vehicle requiring a CDL. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the power unit and hay grinder operated by Defendant was a commercial motor vehicle under the Motor Vehicle Operator’s License Act, and therefore, Defendant’s conviction conformed to the law and was supported by competent evidence. View "State v. Neisius" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with carrying a concealed weapon. At issue before the district court was whether a “Stiletto” knife measuring three and three-quarters inches long that Defendant had in his possession when he was arrested constituted a deadly weapon under Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-1202. The district court concluded that the knife was a deadly weapon per se under section 28-1202 and found Defendant guilty of carrying a concealed weapon. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, given the amendment to section 28-1202 and the amendment to the term “knife” as defined in Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-1202(5), any knife with a blade over three and a half inches in length is a deadly weapon per se, and the manner or intended use of such deadly weapon is not an element of the crime charged. View "State v. Nguyen" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of three counts of first degree murder, three counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and one count of possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting Defendant’s out-of-court statements to several witnesses in the weeks following the murders under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded the cause for a new trial, holding that the trial court erred in admitting the hearsay statements of one witness, and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Britt" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff brought this personal injury action against the City of Gering and Scotts Bluff County under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act. The City and the County admitted liability, leaving Plaintiff’s claim for damages the only matter at issue in the ensuing bench trial. After the trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $575,203. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) issues related to Defendants’ motion to compel discovery were reviewable in this appeal; (2) the district court did not err when it sustained hearsay objections to evidence offered in support of the motion to compel; (3) the district court did not err when it overruled the motion to continue the trial in order to allow discovery; (4) the district court was not clearly wrong in its findings that Plaintiff’s condition was caused by the accident and that a surgery performed on Plaintiff was necessary; and (5) the district court did not err when it awarded damages related to the challenged surgery. View "Moreno v. City of Gering" on Justia Law

U.S. Bank was a senior lien holder on certain property, and First Nebraska Educators Credit Union’s interest was junior to U.S. Bank’s. After a foreclosure sale, First Nebraska filed suit, alleging that because it did not receive notice of the sale, it was not able to bid on the property, and its second lien interest was extinguished with the sale of the property. The district court granted U.S. Bank’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, concluding that First Nebraska was not entitled to notice. At issue on appeal was whether U.S. Bank was required to mail a notice of sale to First Nebraska under Neb. Rev. Stat. 76-1008. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that U.S. Bank was not required to serve notice of foreclosure sale upon First Nebraska. View "First Neb. Educators Credit Union v. U.S. Bancorp" on Justia Law