Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first degree murder, use of a weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions, holding (1) Appellant waived any claimed error regarding the admission of autopsy photographs of the victim’s injuries; (2) the trial court did not err in overruling Appellant’s Batson challenge to the State’s use of a peremptory strike against the only African-American prospective juror; and (3) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of irrelevant DNA testing results, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Kari and Elizabeth Johnson were divorced in 2010. The parties were awarded joint legal custody of their two children, and Elizabeth was awarded physical custody. The decree to required Kari to pay $3,000 per month in child support. Kari later filed an application to modify the decree. The parties stipulated to a modification of physical custody to a joint physical and legal custody arrangement. After a trial, the district court determined that Kari’s child support obligation should be set at $443 per month and that Kari was entitled to receive credit a result of his “overpayment” of child support obligations during the pendency of the modification proceedings. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the Court of Appeals (1) correctly determined that the district court erred when it imputed to Elizabeth a wage-earning capacity of $52,000 per year; (2) did not err in affirming the district court’s conclusion that Kari should not be given a credit for Social Security benefits paid to the children; and (3) erred when it reasoned that, upon remand, Kari could not receive credit for overpayments made during the pendency of the modification proceedings. Remanded. View "Johnson v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of three counts of first degree murder and three counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Defendant was sentenced to three life sentences and seventy-five to ninety years’ imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing, in part, that the district court abused its discretion in overruling Defendant’s two motions for mistrial when one witness referenced Defendant’s prior conviction and another witness’s testimony allegedly differed from her deposition testimony. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendants’ motion for mistrial, as the mention of Defendant’s prior conviction did not influence the jury to such a degree that the entire outcome of the case was tainted, and there was no evidence that a discovery violation occurred; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to find Defendant guilty of all charges beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Davis" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs asserted six causes of action against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo), the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), Erika Knapstein, Bank of the West, and Jeff T. Courtney arising out of the foreclosure and subsequently sale of Plaintiffs’ residence. As a premise for all causes of action, Plaintiffs asserted that the assignment of their mortgage was defective. The district court dismissed Bank of the West and Courtney for failure to prosecute and granted summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo, Fannie Mae, and Knapstein. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) whether the assignment of the mortgage was properly executed was not a material issue in the causes of action addressed in this appeal because Plaintiffs could not show an injury arising from the assignment, and therefore, Plaintiffs lacked standing to assert any cause of action that dependent upon the validity of the assignment; and (2) the district court correctly dismissed Courtney for failure to prosecute, but Bank of the West should have been dismissed from the action for lack of standing. View "Marcuzzo v. Bank of the West" on Justia Law

Plaintiff donated 159 acres of land to the Nebraska National Trails Museum Foundation (NNTM). At the time of the donation, NNTM leased the land back to Plaintiff and allowed him to farm the land. Plaintiff’s subsequent upgrades to the land caused the number of certified irrigated acres (CIAs) assigned to the land to almost double. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that NNTM would be unjustly enriched if it were allowed to maintain possession of the CIAs. The district court entered judgment in favor of NNTM. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in determining that Plaintiff was not entitled to the CIAs; and (2) the district judge who heard the case did not err in not recusing himself from the proceedings after the judge had a conversation with the manager of another natural resources district regarding Plaintiff. View "Kalkowski v. Neb. Nat’l Trails Museum Found., Inc." on Justia Law

Marvin Shell died in 2012. Jane Voboril, Shell’s niece, and Sharon Vanosdall, Shell’s sister-in-law, were the two beneficiaries of Shell’s will. The distributions to Voboril and Vanosdall were subject to different amounts of inheritance taxes. Voboril’s lawyer, however, argued that the will showed Shell’s intent to treat inheritance taxes as an expense of the estate. The county court agreed and entered an order treating the inheritance taxes as an expense of the estate. Vanosdall appealed, arguing that the will did not clearly express this intent. the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the will showed Shell’s intent to treat inheritance taxes as an expense of his estate. View "In re Estate of Shell" on Justia Law

Pursuant to the Nebraska Advantage Act, Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) entered an agreement with the Tax Commissioner with the aim of using incentives set forth in the Act for a project in Platte County. ADM sought a personal property tax exemption for the year 2010 under the Act for property involving agricultural processing equipment. The Department denied the exemption on the grounds that the personal property tax exemption claim had not been timely filed. The Tax Equalization Review Commission (TERC) affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) ADM did not timely file its claim for a personal property tax exemption for the subject property, and therefore ADM was not entitled to the exemption; and (2) TERC did not err when it affirmed the order of the Tax Commission denying ADM’s protest. View "Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. State" on Justia Law

Melanie M., who lived in North Platte, Nebraska, received benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp Program. In 2014, the Department of Health and Human Services (Department) informed Melanie that it was going to change her benefits. Melanie requested an administrative hearing regarding the proposed changes. The Department informed Melanie that it would hold the hearing in Lincoln, Nebraska and that Melanie could participate in person or telephonically. Before the administrative hearing occurred, Melanie filed a complaint alleging that the Department’s regulations and procedural due process required that the Department grant her a face-to-face hearing at the Department’s North Platte office. The district court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the summary judgment as to Melanie’s due process claim, holding that the due process clause did not require a face-to-face hearing at the North Platte office; but (2) reversed on Melanie’s prayer for relief under the Department’s regulations, holding that the regulations required that the Department hold the face-to-face hearing at the local office. View "Melanie M. v. Winterer" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of three counts of first degree sexual assault of a child. Defendant was sentenced to fifteen to twenty-five years imprisonment on each count with two counts to be served consecutively and the third to be served concurrently with the other two. The court of appeals remanded the cause after finding plain error in the sentencing and ordered the district court to resentence Defendant’s convictions to be served consecutively to each other. The Supreme Court vacated the district court’s resentencing order and remanded with directions to reinstate the original sentences imposed by the district court, holding that it was not plain error for the district court to sentence Defendant concurrently for his third conviction under Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-319.01. View "State v. Lantz" on Justia Law

After voters in School District rejected a bond proposal to construct an addition to existing high school building, School District entered into a lease-purchase agreement with Bank, which agreed to finance the project. Appellants, residents and taxpayers in the school district, sought declaratory and injunctive relief contending that the agreement violated Neb. Rev. Stat. 79-10,105. The trial court denied relief, concluding (1) under section 79-10,105, lease-purchase agreements may be used to make school improvements without the voters’ approval if the project is not funded by bonded debt; and (2) School District in this case did not fund the project through bonded indebtedness. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellants’ claims were moot because, as of the time of this appeal, the addition had been completed, but the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine applied; and (2) section 79-10,105 does not prohibit a school district from entering into a lease-purchase agreement to finance a capital construction project if it has not created a nonprofit corporation to issue bonds for the school district, and because there was no evidence that this occurred in this case, School District did not violate section 79-10,105 by entering into the lease-purchase agreement with Bank. View "Nebuda v. Dodge County Sch. Dist. 0062" on Justia Law