Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After Emil Alberts died, Lois Alberts, his surviving spouse, authorized her attorney to file a petition on her behalf to elect to take one-half of Emil’s augmented estate pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 30-2313. Emil’s two nephews (Appellants), as coperaonal representatives of Emil’s estate and as beneficiaries of Emil’s trust, objected to the petition’s validity and to the calculation of Lois’ elective share within it. The county court found that Lois’ petition for elective share was validly filed and that certain trust property should be included in the augmented estate for purposes of calculating Lois’ elective share. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the county court did not err in finding that the petition for elective share was validly filed; but (2) the county court erred in failing to rule that the value of the trust property at issue should be excluded from the augmented estate under Neb. Rev. Stat. 30-2314(c)(2). Remanded. View "In re Estate of Alberts" on Justia Law

Kristina Scheele was injured in an automobile accident with a semi-trailer truck driven by Frank Lukach. Darrell Rains was burning vegetation off of a field along the highway when the accident occurred. Scheele sued Rains, Lukach, Delles Carrier Inc., and Sentry Insurance and the Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society, which were included for workers’ compensation subrogation purposes, alleging negligence. After a trial, the jury returned a verdict finding that Scheele had not met her burden of proof as to the negligence of either Rains or Delles and Lukach. Scheele appealed, arguing that the district court erred in not entering a directed verdict for her and in giving a corrected version of an instruction that was first given incorrectly. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Scheele’s assignments of error were without merit. View "Scheele v. Rains" on Justia Law

James McCoolidge bought a used automobile over the Internet. After McCoolidge received the certificate of title, however, he had trouble registering the certificate in Nebraska. McCoolidge sued the man that sold him the car, a licensed dealer in Tennessee, and the insurer that had issued a surety bond to the dealership, alleging failure to deliver “clear title” for the vehicle. The district court entered judgment for Defendants, concluding that Defendants initially breached the warranty of title but that McCoolidge eventually received good title and that McCoolidge had failed to prove damages. McCoolidge appealed, arguing that even after he received a registrable certificate, certain defects cast a shadow on his title. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that McCoolidge did not prove the damages he suffered from these defects. View "McCoolidge v. Oyvetsky" on Justia Law

Appellant shot and killed his father in the sight of Appellant’s three nieces. After a bench trial, the district court convicted Appellant of first degree murder, using a firearm to commit a felony, and three counts of negligent child abuse. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) finding that Appellant did not voluntarily and intelligently waive his right to a jury trial or consent to a trial before a new judge to which the trial was reassigned; (2) excluding as unreliable Appellant’s expert witness’s opinion regarding Appellant’s mental state when he killed the victim; and (3) finding that the evidence was sufficient to support Appellant’s first degree murder conviction. View "State v. Braesch" on Justia Law

Before Genevieve Franke’s death in 2014, she had been a resident of a nursing home. In 2013, Genevieve agreed to sell her farmland to her son John Franke at a price below its fair market value. Laurie Berggren, Genevieve's daughter, subsequently petitioned for the appointment of a conservator. The court appointed Laurie as Genevieve’s temporary conservator and Cornerstone Bank as Genevieve’s permanent conservator. Both Genevieve and John appealed. Before the parties filed briefs, Genevieve’s attorney filed a suggestion of death stating that Genevieve had died. Genevieve, through her attorney of record, sought an order to dismiss the appeal as moot and to vacate the county court’s order appointing a permanent conservator. John, in turn, moved for an order reviving the appeal. The Supreme Court overruled both of these motions, holding (1) Genevieve’s attorney has no standing to represent her in the Court after her death; (2) Genevieve’s death has abated John’s appeal, for which he has standing, because her competency and need for a conservator are moot issues; and (3) the abatement of John’s appeal does not require the Court to vacate the county court’s orders appointing a conservator. View "In re Conservatorship of Franke" on Justia Law

Marilyn Waldron, a seventy-eight-year-old woman, sustained injuries when Deputy Sheriff James Roark and his partner entered Waldron’s home to serve an arrest warrant on Waldron’s grandson. Waldron brought this action against Roark pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming that the entry was in violation of the Fourth Amendment and that Roark used excessive force against her. The district court granted summary judgment to Roark, concluding that the circumstances justified the deputies’ entry into the home and that Roark’s use of force was objectively reasonable. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a question of fact existed as to whether Roark’s entry into Waldron’s home violated her rights under the Fourth Amendment; and (2) a question of fact existed as to whether the force Roark used was excessive. Remanded. View "Waldron v. Roark" on Justia Law

Opal Lowman was injured in an automobile accident. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company provided underinsured motorist coverage to Opal and her husband. The Lowmans sued State Farm, seeking damages. The jury returned a verdict for the Lowmans in the amount of $0. The Lowmans filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err when it entered judgment on the jury’s verdict where the jury awarded the Lowmans no money damages; and (2) the district court did not err in denying the Lowmans’ motion for new trial. View "Lowman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and conspiracy to commit robbery. Defendant was sentenced to consecutive terms of life imprisonment, forty to fifty years’ imprisonment, and ten to twenty years’ imprisonment, respectively. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) overruling various pretrial motions, including a motion in limine and a motion to suppress; (2) instructing the jury; (3) overruling Defendant’s motion for a motion for a bill of particulars; (4) overruling Defendant’s motion to sever the conspiracy to commit robbery count from the other three counts for trial; and (5) admitting and handling certain evidence. View "State v. Henry" on Justia Law

The district court dissolved the marriage of Kimberly and Michael, awarded Kimberly custody of the parties’ minor children, and ordered Michael to pay child support. After Michael became disabled, the State, as intervenor, filed a complaint to modify the child support order. A child support referee recommended that the court reduce Michael’s child support payments. The court entered an order purporting to approve the recommendations contingent on neither party’s filing exceptions during the next two weeks. Kimberly appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the order from which Kimberly appealed was conditional and therefore not a final, appealable order. View "Stevens v. Stevens" on Justia Law

The juvenile court found Tavian B. to be a child who lacks proper parental care by reason of the fault or habits of his parents and to be in a situation dangerous to life or limb or injurious to his health or morals. The State subsequently filed a motion to terminate the parental rights of both parents. Father filed a motion to transfer jurisdiction to the Oglala Sioux Tribal Juvenile Court pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Before the juvenile court ruled on Father’s motion to transfer, the State withdrew its motion to terminate parental rights. Thereafter, the juvenile court concluded that good cause existed to overrule Father’s motion to transfer jurisdiction to the tribal court because the proceedings were in “an advanced stage.” The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the State did not meet its burden of establishing good cause to deny transfer to tribal court, and therefore, the district court abused its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion to transfer. View "In re Interest of Tavian B." on Justia Law