Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of robbery, first degree false imprisonment, third degree assault, third degree sexual assault, and carrying a concealed weapon. The parties subsequently entered into a sentencing agreement, pursuant to which Defendant waived his right to appeal. The district court imposed sentences in conformity with the sentencing agreement. Defendant subsequently appealed, arguing that the sentencing agreement was unenforceable because appeal waivers are against public policy. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal entered into as party of the sentencing agreement was enforceable. View "State v. Dye" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, homeowners, brought this action against Defendants, the company that constructed Plaintiffs’ home and the developer of the lot on which the home was built, alleging negligent construction of the home. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that the action was barred by the four-year statute of limitations set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-223. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The court of appeals affirmed as to the developer but reversed as to the construction company, finding the action against it was not barred by section 25-223. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded with directions to affirm the judgment of the district court, holding that the court of appeals erred in concluding that the statute of limitations began to run on Plaintiffs’ claims at the expiration of the express one-year limited warranty issued by the construction company instead of the date the home was substantially completed. View "Adams v. Manchester Park" on Justia Law

The juvenile court determined that it had jurisdiction over Child, an infant, because of the faults and habits of Mother. The court gave the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services temporary custody of Child. The Department subsequently placed Child with Foster Parents. Foster Parents filed a complaint to intervene to object to any placement change. Mother subsequently moved to place Child with Aunt, who did not live in Nebraska. The court dismissed Foster Parents’ complaint to intervene and approved Aunt for placement. Foster Parents appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Foster Parents lacked standing to appeal the order changing Child’s placement; and (2) Foster Parents were not entitled to intervene as of right, and the juvenile court lacked the power to allow them to equitably intervene. View "In re Interest of Enyce J." on Justia Law

Mother was the biological mother of three minor children. The State, alleging that Mother had substantially and repeatedly neglected and refused to give necessary parental care and protection to the children, filed an amended petition alleging that the children came within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-292(2) and that Mother’s parental rights should be terminated. The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that the children were within the meaning of section 43-292(2) and that it was in their best interests to terminate Mother’s parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) clear and convincing evidence established that Mother substantially and repeatedly neglected to provide the children necessary parental care and protection; and (2) clear and convincing evidence established that Mother’s parental rights be terminated. View "In re Interest of Joseph S." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of burglary with habitual criminal enhancement and sentenced to ten to twenty years’ imprisonment with credit for time served. The State discharged Defendant from the custody of the Department of Correctional Services after erroneously calculating good time on the ten-year mandatory minimum sentence. The district court granted the State’s motion to secure an arrest warrant, and Defendant was subsequently brought back into the Department’s custody. Defendant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that in calculating his mandatory discharge date, the Department’s reliance on State v. Castilla violated the prohibition against ex post facto laws. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the State. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Department did not violate Defendant’s due process rights when it calculated his mandatory discharge date in accordance with the calculation method set forth in Castillas. View "Caton v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree and use of a firearm to commit a felony. Defendant appealed, challenging the denial of his pretrial motions to suppress evidence obtained in the execution of four search warrants. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions, holding (1) the district court’s implicit rejection of Defendant’s testimony claiming that his cell phone was taken from his person and not pursuant to a search warrant was not clearly wrong; (2) Defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his cell phone; and (3) the warrants were either sufficiently particular, or if they violated the particularity requirement, exclusion was not required because the good faith exception applied. View "State v. Tyler" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance with enhancement pursuant to the habitual criminal statute. The district court sentenced Defendant to ten to fifteen years’ imprisonment, with credit for time served. The Nebraska Department of Correctional Services erroneously discharged Defendant from custody before Defendant had served the entirety of his sentence. The State filed a motion asking that the district court issue a warrant for Defendant’s arrest and commitment so that he could serve out the remainder of his sentence. The district court issued the arrest and commitment warrant. Defendant appealed the court’s order for an arrest and commitment warrant. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of a final, appealable order, holding that the district court’s order for an arrest and commitment warrant was simply a temporary order of enforcement and not a final order, and therefore, the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction over the appeal. View "State v. Jackson" on Justia Law

The State filed a petition seeking to adjudicate Child as a child under Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-247(3)(a), alleging that Father had abused and neglected Child. The motion was granted. Mother subsequently filed a motion for custody of Child. Following an adjudication hearing, the juvenile court entered an order adjudicating Child and placing her in the temporary custody of the Department of Health and Human Services with placement to exclude the parental home. The juvenile court also denied Mother’s motion for custody. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the order of adjudication; but (2) reversed the denial of Mother’s motion for custody, as the juvenile court erred to the extent it concluded that Mother needed to file a motion to intervene in this case and erred in overlooking Mother’s status as Child’s mother in making its custody determination. Remanded for further proceedings. View "In re Interest of Sloane O." on Justia Law

When Father and Mother divorced, the court granted Mother custody of the parties’ minor daughter and ordered Father to pay child support. The court subsequently raised Father’s child support obligation. After Father’s income substantially decreased, Father filed a complaint to modify his child support obligation. The trial court dismissed the complaint, concluding that Father might be entitled to a modification under the Nebraska Child Support Guidelines but that a deviation from the guidelines was warranted because Father owned non-income-producing real estate. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by deviating from the guidelines because of Father’s financial resources, including his equity in non-income-producing real estate. View "Stekr v. Beecham" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with violating Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-4,108(1)(b) for driving under revocation. Defendant pled no contest to the complaint. The county court found Defendant’s prior convictions for driving under suspension admissible for enhancement purposes, enhanced Defendant’s conviction to third offense, and sentenced him to thirty days’ imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in concluding that his prior convictions for driving under suspension under Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-4,108(2) were valid convictions to enhance his conviction for driving under revocation under section 60-4,108(1). The Supreme Court vacated the sentence, holding that the county court erred in enhancing Defendant’s conviction to a third offense, as a violation of section 60-4,108(2) is not available to enhance a violation of section 60-4,108(1). View "State v. Mendoza-Bautista" on Justia Law