Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court dismissing Defendant's third motion for new trial without holding an evidentiary hearing, holding that Defendant was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on any of the claims of newly discovered evidence at issue in this appeal.Defendant was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and four related felonies in 1989, and his convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. Defendant subsequently filed a series of motions for new trial and successive motions for postconviction relief, without success. Before the Supreme Court was Defendant's third motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing the motion without an evidentiary hearing, holding that Defendant's operative motion and supporting documents did not entitle him to an evidentiary hearing. View "State v. Boppre" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for four counts of first degree murder, four counts of use of a weapon to commit a felony, and one count of burglary and his sentences of death for each of the four murder convictions, holding that there was no prejudicial error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant assigned 130 separate assignments of error generally comprising fifteen separate topic areas. The Supreme Court discussed the assignments of error and then affirmed, holding (1) this Court could not determine on direct appeal whether counsel was ineffective in certain respects; and (2) as to Defendant's remaining assignments of error, they were unavailing. View "State v. Garcia" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court that overruled Defendant's motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing, holding that Defendant's challenges to his convictions and the five death sentences he received for murders he committed during a bank robbery were unavailing.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of five counts of first degree murder, among other offenses, and sentenced to death for each of the five murders. Defendant later filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging prosecutorial misconduct claims, ineffective assistance of counsel claims, and additional claims. The district court denied relief without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by (1) denying an evidentiary hearing on Defendant's prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel claims; and (2) denying relief for other alleged violations of Defendant's constitutional rights. View "State v. Galindo" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court affirming Defendant's convictions and sentences for driving under the influence (DUI), possession of an open alcoholic beverage container, and careless driving, holding that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions.After a bench trial, the county court adjudged Defendant guilty of DUI, possession of an open alcoholic beverage container, and careless driving. The district court affirmed, concluding that no abuse of discretion or error was shown in the record and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the State presented sufficient evidence to sustain Defendant's DUI conviction. View "State v. Buol" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed as modified Defendant's convictions for two counts of first degree murder and two counts of use of a firearm to commit a felony, holding that the record was insufficient to address certain claims, and there was otherwise no merit to his arguments on direct appeal.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) there was no plain error in the admission of evidence regarding a prior shooting; (2) there was no plain error in the prosecution's remarks; (3) the record was insufficient to address several of Defendant's numerous claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and there was no merit to Defendant's remaining ineffective assistance of counsel claims; and (4) the sentencing order must be modified to reflect a sentence of life imprisonment for each of Defendant's convictions for first degree murder. View "State v. Mabior" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court awarding Mother sole legal and physical custody of the parties' minor child and making some of Mother's requested findings to support an application to obtain special immigrant juvenile (SIJ) status for the child under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)(J) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, holding that there was no abuse of discretion.Mother and Father were married in Mexico and had one child, Max. The parties later moved to Nebraska, where they separated. Mother filed a complaint for dissolution, requesting sole legal and physical custody of Max. The district court dissolved the marriage and awarded Mother custody. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err by refusing to make all the SIJ findings that Mother requested; and (2) Mother's second assignment of error was without merit. View "Hernandez v. Dorantes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court finding that Nancy Miles, Cheryl Bettin, and Robert Moninger would by unjustly enriched if they were not required to make reimbursement of taxes paid on the property at issue in this case during the time that Boone River, LLC and 11T NE, LLC held the tax certificate and tax deed, holding that the present lawsuit was barred by claim preclusion.Boone River purchased a tax certificate for the property owned by Miles, Bettin, and Moninger and obtained a tax deed. Boone River later transferred the property to 11T. When 11T sued to quiet title to the property the district court voided 11T's tax deed and quieted title to the property in Miles, Bettin, and Moninger. Thereafter, Boone River and 11T brought this lawsuit for unjust enrichment, seeking to be reimbursed for taxes paid on the property while they held they held the tax certificate and tax deed. The district court ruled in favor of Boone River and 11T. Miles and Bettin appealed, but Moninger did not. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that Miles and Bettin showed that this action was barred by claim preclusion. View "Boone River, LLC v. Miles" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this interlocutory appeal from a district court order granting a motion to stay arbitration proceedings between the codefendants in the underlying negligence action, holding that the order staying arbitration was not immediately appealable.Walgreens Boot Alliance, Inc. contracted with Ferrandino & Son, Inc. to provide services at various locations through the United States. Ferrandino contracted with Patera Landscaping, LLC to perform snow removal services at three Walgreens locations in Omaha. Yvonne McPherson was injured when she slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk outside an Omaha Walgreens and filed a negligence action against Patera, Ferrandino, and Walgreens. Ferrandino filed a demand for arbitration seeking a determination that under the terms of the subcontract, Patera had a contractual duty to defend and indemnify both Ferrandino and Walgreens against McPherson's claims. Petera moved to stay the arbitration based on Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-2603. The district court granted the motion to stay arbitration, and Ferrandino appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the order staying arbitration was not immediately appealable. View "McPherson v. Walgreens Boot Alliance, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court granting Wife's motion to alter or amend after granting Husband's motion to alter or amend a stipulated decree of dissolution of marriage based upon a written agreement between the parties, holding that Husband was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Inaccurate information during settlement negotiations ultimately resulted in the failure of a portion of the stipulated decree of dissolution. Therefore, the district court granted Husband's motion to alter or amend, vacating portions of the stipulated decree concerning spousal support and division of property and the court's equitable division of property calculation. Wife subsequently moved to alter or amend the judgment, which the court granted, recalculating the division of property and limiting the alimony award to fifteen years. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by limiting the alimony award to fifteen years or in classifying and dividing the marital estate. View "Karas v. Karas" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the summary judgment granted by the district court in favor of a non-shareholder officer and a non-shareholder former director in this suit brought by Landlord seeking to pierce the corporate veil of a commercial tenant (Tenant), who failed or refused to pay a judgment against it, holding that the district court did not err.Landlord sued Tenant for nonpayment of rent and recovered a judgment. When Landlord was unable to recover on its judgment it commenced the instant action seeking to pierce Tenant's corporate veil and hold a non-shareholder officer and a non-shareholder former director personally liable for the judgment against Tenant. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Defendants and dismissed the case with prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the factors did not weigh in favor of veil piercing. View "407 N 117 Street v. Harper" on Justia Law