Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The juvenile court granted the Department of Health and Human Services temporary custody of Jackson after finding that he had suffered head injuries at home. Jackson was placed with his maternal grandmother, Erin, and her husband, Paul, where he remained in foster care for the next two and a half years. The Department later removed Jackson from his placement with Erin and Paul and placed him with other foster parents. Erin and Paul filed a motion for placement requesting an order that the Department place Jackson back with them and also filed a motion to intervene. The court granted Erin and Paul’s motion to intervene but denied their motion for placement, finding that the State had met its burden of proof that its placement plan was in the best interests of Jackson. Erin and Paul filed a motion for new trial or to alter or amend the court’s order. The motion was denied. Erin and Paul appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that Erin and Paul had no right to take an appeal under the circumstances, and therefore, they had no standing. View "In re Interest of Jackson E." on Justia Law

The State filed a petition requesting that K.J. be adjudicated within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-247(3)(a). After a hearing, the court ordered care, custody, and control of K.J. to remain with the Department of Health and Human Services. The State later filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Charles to K.J., his son, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-292. Following the termination hearing, the juvenile court denied the State’s petition to terminate Charles’ parental rights, finding that it should have appointed an attorney for Charles at the adjudication hearing. The State appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the juvenile court’s failure to provide Charles with counsel during the adjudication phase did not preclude consideration of termination of parental rights pursuant to section 43-292(1) through (3); and (2) there was clear and convincing evidence that Charles abandoned K.J. and that the termination of his parental rights was in K.J.’s best interests. View "In re Interest of Isabel P." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and burglary. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) finding sufficient evidence to sustain Appellant’s convictions for first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony; (2) admitting certain evidence over Defendant’s foundation objection and relevance objection; and (3) instructing the jury on the elements of first degree murder, second degree murder, and manslaughter and refusing Appellant’s proposed elements instruction. View "State v. Casterline" on Justia Law

In 2011, Cheyenne County conducted its annual tax sale. Rather than using a traditional “round robin” format at the sale, the county treasurer used the “bid down” format provided by Neb. Rev. Stat. 77-1807. Adair Asset Management, LLC purchased a tax sale certificate on certain real estate, now owned by Terry’s Legacy, LLC, after offering to pay the taxes due for a one percent undivided interest in the property. After paying delinquent taxes on the property, Adair filed a complaint and obtained a decree judicially foreclosing the lien provided by the tax sale certificate. The complaint alleged that there was a potential claim against the property by First State Bank. The subsequent decree, in effect, ordered a sale of a 100-percent interest in the property. Terry’s Legacy appealed, arguing that the district court erred by failing to determine that it retained a ninety-nine-percent interest in the property. The Supreme Court modified the decree of foreclosure to apply only to Adair’s undivided one percent interest in the property and, as so modified, affirmed, holding that Adair’s lien to be foreclosed is limited to one percent of the property. Remanded. View "Adair Asset Mgmt., LLC v. Terry’s Legacy, LLC" on Justia Law

Shortly after his release from prison, Nikko Jenkins shot Shamecka Holloway. Holloway sued the State, Correct Care Solutions (CCS), and certain State employees, claiming that the State and CCS, which contracted with the State to provide medical services for inmates, were negligent in failing to provide Jenkins with adequate mental health treatment and failing to seek mental health commitment prior to Jenkins’ release. The district court dismissed Holloway’s claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State and its employees were entitled to immunity from suit because whether to seek commitment falls under the discretionary function exception to the State Tort Claims Act; and (2) Holloway failed to plead sufficient facts to show that CCS was liable. View "Holloway v. State" on Justia Law

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