Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted in county court of three municipal ordinance violations and sentenced to pay fines and court costs. Defendant appealed his convictions to the district court. The district court purportedly dismissed the appeal because Defendant failed to pay for the preparation of the transcript. Fourteen days later, Defendant filed a motion for an order reinstating his appeal, but the request was denied. The district court subsequently overruled Defendant’s motion for reconsideration. Defendant again appealed. The Court of Appeals dismissed Defendant’s appeal as being out of time. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because Defendant filed his notice of appeal within thirty days of the district court’s final order overruling Defendant’s motion for reconsideration, the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "State v. Meints" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a disability discrimination action under the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act, alleging that his Employer was aware of his disabilities and discriminated against him under the Act and that his Employer terminated his employment for violating standards or conditions of employment that did not apply to employees without disabilities. The jury returned a verdict for the Employer. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in excluding testimony by a vocational rehabilitation counselor that was relevant to show the Employer’s knowledge and previous accommodation of Plaintiff’s mental impairments after a work-related accident, and the error was prejudicial. Remanded for a new trial. View "Arens v. NEBCO Inc." on Justia Law

Following the insolvency of Pierce Elevator, Inc. (PEI), the Nebraska Public Service Commission (PSC) initiated proceedings to determine claims under the Grain Warehouse Act and the Grain Dealer Act. After PEI voluntarily surrendered its grain warehouse license to the PSC, the PSC took title to all PEI grain in storage in trust for distribution to all valid owners, depositors, or storers of grain pursuant to the Grain Warehouse Act. The PSC then determined valid claims under the Grain Warehouse Act and the Grain Dealer Act. The appellant and cross-appellants in this case were claimants who challenged the PSC’s classification of their claims. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and in part reversed and dismissed, holding (1) the PSC correctly determined that it did not have jurisdiction to determine the fraud claims of the appellant and some cross-appellants and that the appellant and other-cross appellants were not entitled to recovery under the Grain Warehouse Act; (2) the PSC erred in finding that some cross-appellants were not entitled to recovery under the Grain Warehouse Act; and (3) some cross-appellants did not have standing to challenge the classification of a certain transaction. View "In re Claims Against Pierce Elevator" on Justia Law

Rent-A-Roofer, Inc. (Appellant) settled a lawsuit filed by the National Research Corporation (NRC) without notifying its insurer, Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance Company (the Insurer), of the lawsuit. Appellant later notified the Insurer of its involvement in litigation and made a demand under Appellant’s policy with the Insurer. The Insurer declined coverage on the grounds that Appellant breached the policy’s notice provision and the voluntary payments provision. Appellant subsequently brought this action against the Insurer, alleging breach of contract and bad faith. The district court granted summary judgment for the Insurer. The district court first concluded that for an insurer to deny coverage based on breach of a voluntary settlement condition, the insurer must show prejudice in connection with its claim. The court then ruled that, where Appellant failed to meet both the notice and voluntary payments provisions, prejudice had been established as a matter of law. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly found that the Insurer was not liable for settlement by NRC against Appellant and not liable for Appellant’s defense costs. View "Rent-A-Roofer v. Farm Bureau Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Under the terms of the will of Etta Jurgens (the decedent), Janice Litherland was to receive certain real estate if it was owned by Etta at the time of her death. Gary Jurgens (Jurgens) and Velda Lenners were also beneficiaries under the decedent’s will. Prior to the decedent’s death, Jurgens, as the decedent’s attorney in fact, sold the property. Under a separate provision of the will, the proceeds from the sale were deposited into the decedent’s bank accounts and divided equally among Litherland, Jurgens, and Lenners upon the decedent’s death. Litherland later brought this action against Jurgens and Lenners for unjust enrichment, intentional interference with an inheritance, and conspiracy. The district court dismissed Litherland’s action. Litherland appealed, challenging the district court’s dismissal of her claims for interference with an inheritance and conspiracy. At issue on appeal was whether Nebraska recognizes a cause of action for the tort of intentional interference with an inheritance. The Supreme Court declined to adopt the tort as a cause of action that is permitted in Nebraska and therefore affirmed the district court, concluding that without such an underlying tort, both of Litherland’s claims challenged on appeal failed. View "Litherland v. Jurgens" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a registered nurse employed by Good Samaritan Hospital, commenced this action in the Workers’ Compensation Court alleging that mental injuries she received as the result of three assaults that occurred during the course of her employment rendered her unable to work. The compensation court found in favor of Plaintiff, concluding that Plaintiff sustained a 100 percent loss of earning power due to the psychological injuries. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the compensation court was not clearly wrong in finding that Plaintiff suffered from major depressive disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder as a result of her psychological injury while working for Good Samaritan and that she was left permanently and totally disabled as a result. View "Hynes v. Good Samaritan Hosp." on Justia Law

In 2012, as the result of a change in the way the Custer County assessor classified irrigated grassland for purposes of valuation, the assessor increased the assessed value of the property owned by Appellant from $734,968 to $1,834,924. Appellant filed petitions with the Tax Equalization and Review Commission (TERC) pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 77-1507.01 challenging the valuation increase. After two separate hearings on Appellant’s petitions, TERC affirmed the assessor’s valuations for 2012. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that TERC’s consideration of Appellant’s petitions using the appellate standard of review described in Nev. Rev. Stat. 77-5016(9) constituted plain error. Remanded. View "Cain v. Custer County Bd. of Equalization" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to fifty years to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed. Defendant later filed a motion for postconviction relief, arguing that his trial and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance. The district court denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the district court’s decision to deny Defendant an evidentiary hearing on his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the admission of certain exhibits; and (2) affirmed the decision of the district court in all other respects. Remanded. View "State v. Huston" on Justia Law

The water appropriation in this case was a surface water right to divert a specified volume of water from the North Loup River to “be used for irrigation purposes only.” Appellant held the appropriation and the lands covered by it. The Nebraska Department of Natural Resources (Department) issued a notice of preliminary determination of nonuse of the appropriation to Appellant. The Department cancelled the appropriation in its entirety, concluding that the lands designated under the appropriation had not been irrigation for more than five consecutive years and that Appellant had failed to establish sufficient cause for nonuse. The Supreme Court affirmed the Department’s order of cancellation, holding that Appellant failed to establish sufficient cause to excuse its nonuse of the appropriation and that the Department’s decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. View "In re Appropriation A-7603" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI), first offense. Defendant appealed, arguing that the county court erred when it overruled his motion to suppress because the warrantless drawing of his blood did not satisfy any exception to the requirement of a search warrant under the Fourth Amendment. The district court affirmed the conviction, concluding that Defendant gave informed consent to the blood draw, and therefore, a search warrant was not necessary. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a blood draw of an arrestee in a DUI case is a search subject to Fourth Amendment principles, and when the State claims the blood draw was proper pursuant to the consent exception to the warrant requirement, actual voluntary consent is to be determined by reference to the totality of the circumstances, one of which is the existence of an implied consent statute; and (2) the county court did not err when it determined that Defendant consented to the search and, therefore, did not err in overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress. View "State v. Modlin" on Justia Law