Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2014, Elizabeth Stanosheck filed for divorce from Joseph Jeanette. After a trial in 2015, the district court entered judgment diving the marital estate. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion in valuing the marital estate at the time of trial rather than the date the divorce was filed; (2) did not abuse its discretion in dividing the remaining proceeds from the sale of the marital home equally, rather than awarding the entire sum to Joseph; but (3) erred in classifying, valuing, and dividing the parties’ retirement accounts. Remanded. View "Stanosheck v. Jeanette" on Justia Law

Hilda Graham (Hilda), the owner of a certificate of deposit (CD), changed the payable-on-death beneficiary to Elaine Cisneros (Cisneros) in 2013. That same year, Hilda appointed Gregory Graham (Graham) as her power of attorney. Graham used the power of attorney to cash the CD and deposit the proceeds into a checking account with right of survivorship that he co-owned with Hilda. When Hilda died, the balance in the checking account became Graham’s by operation of law. Cisneros filed a complaint against Graham. The district court entered summary judgment for Cisneros, concluding that Graham’s actions were fraudulent under a theory of constructive fraud. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err (1) when it determined that Graham lacked authority under the power of attorney to cash the CD and deposit the proceeds into a checking account; (2) when it granted summary judgment for Cisneros’ because there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Hilda ratified Graham’s actions; and (3) when it denied an award of attorney fees to Cisneros. View "Cisneros v. Graham" on Justia Law

Appellants filed a complaint challenging a referendum petition. The purpose of the petition was to refer to the voters in the November 2016 general election the question of whether the death penalty should be reinstated. Appellants sought to enjoin the Secretary of State from placing the referendum on the ballot, alleging that the referendum petition was not legally sufficient because a list of sponsors filed with the petition did not include the name of Governor Pete Ricketts, who allegedly engaged in activities that established that he was a sponsor of the referendum. The district court dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Ricketts’ alleged financial or other support of the referendum did not make him a a person “sponsoring the petition,” as that phrase is used in Neb. Rev. Stat. 32-1405(1); and (2) therefore, the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. View "Hargesheimer v. Gale" on Justia Law

Mother and Father divorced in 2002. The parties share legal custody of their two minor children, and Mother has physical custody. Pursuant to a 2011 parenting plan, Father was to have rights of visitation. In 2015, Father filed a motion for an order for Mother to show cause why she should not be held in contempt for her alleged failure to allow Father to exercise parenting time on certain days. After a hearing, the district court found Mother in contempt of court for willful failure to comply with the district court’s order with regard to parenting time. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not commit clear error in its factual findings; (2) did not abuse its discretion in finding Mother in contempt and in imposing a sixty-day jail sentence; and (3) did not abuse its discretion in modifying the parenting plan within the contempt proceeding to require the parties to obtain written consent of the guardian ad litem before changing the parenting schedule. View "Martin v. Martin" on Justia Law

Appellant, a farmer, owned Dunaway Farm and Rehfeld Farm, both of which were located within the jurisdiction of the Lower Elkhorn Natural Resources District. Beginning in 2010, Appellant used the well on Rehfeld Farm to irrigate Dunaway Farm, which was previously not irrigated. In 2013, the District ordered Appellant to cease and desist irrigating Dunaway Farm because the District’s rules prohibited use of ground water for new irrigated acres within the District’s management area without a variance. Appellant appealed using the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and also filed a declaratory judgment action challenging the constitutionality of several of the District’s rules related to irrigation. The district court affirmed the District’s decision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) on the APA appeal, there were no errors in the district court’s judicial review of the District’s order; and (2) because the District’s rules are constitutional, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment as to Appellant’s request for a declaratory judgment. View "Lingenfelter v. Lower Elkhorn Natural Res. Dist." on Justia Law

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