Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The juvenile court entered an order prohibiting Mother from homeschooling her daughter Moira B. and directing that Moira continue to be enrolled in an educational program as arranged or approved by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) pending further order of the court. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court’s order was not a temporary order, but rather one that affected Mother’s substantial right to direct the education of her child, and therefore the order was final and appealable; and (2) the juvenile court did not err in prohibiting Mother from homeschooling Moira and ordering that Moira be enrolled in an educational program arranged or approved by DHHS. View "In re Cassandra B." on Justia Law

Miah S., a juvenile, was arrested for burglary. Defendant waived his rights under Miranda and agreed to speak to a detective. The next day, two different detectives interviewed Miah about additional burglaries in the area and notified him that the Miranda warnings from the day before were still in effect. Thereafter, Miah admitted to being involved in other burglaries. Ultimately, Miah was charged with seven additional counts of burglary. Miah moved to suppress his statements to law enforcement during the second encounter, claiming they were obtained in violation of Miranda. The trial court overruled the motion to suppress and adjudicated Miah as being a minor under Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-247(2). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the juvenile court did not err in determining that Miah made a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel and his privilege against self-incrimination during the second interrogation. View "In re Interest of Miah S." on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea bargain, Defendant was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to a term of seventy years to life in prison. The Supreme Court summarily affirmed. Defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging violations of his right to speedy trial, to due process, and to effective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the motion without a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order in part but reversed and remanded with regard to Defendant’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to assert his speedy trial rights. On remand, the district court denied Defendant’s motion for postconviction relief, concluding that Defendant’s right to a speedy trial was not violated and that the continuances sought by counsel for Defendant were sought only after counsel obtained Defendant’s verbal consent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in any of its findings. View "State v. Lee" on Justia Law

These juvenile proceedings involved the six minor children of Mother. The children were adjudicated under Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-247(3)(a) and placed in the custody of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services. The juvenile court subsequently directed the parties to comply with a case plan, the goal of which was for Mother to appropriately care for her children and to reunify the children with Mother. Later, the juvenile court formally changed the permanency goal for the children to adoption for all children. Mother appealed, arguing that the juvenile court erred in finding that the State presented sufficient evidence to establish that the change in permanency objective was in the children’s best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because the juvenile court’s orders affected Mother’s substantial right to raise her children, they were final and appealable; and (2) the evidence supported the juvenile court’s order changing the primary permanency objective from reunification with Mother to adoption. View "In re Interest of Octavio B." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of multiple felony convictions, including two counts of first degree murder. Defendant was tried jointly with his accomplice. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences, holding (1) Defendant’s identification by the State’s primary witness did not violate his due process rights; (2) the district court did not err in admitting an exhibit showing six calls received by Defendant on the day of the shootings; (3) the district court did not err in overruling Defendant’s motions for mistrial and for new trial; (4) the district court did not err in excluding the statements of a confidential informant; (5) the district court did not err in limiting the scope of his cross-examination of the State’s primary witness; (6) the district court did not err in overruling Defendant’s motion to reopen the evidence; and (7) Defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel either lacked merit or could not be resolved. View "State v. Newman" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of multiple felony convictions, including two convictions for first degree murder. Defendant was tried jointly with his accomplice. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences, holding that the district court did not err in (1) consolidating Defendant’s and his accomplice’s trials and overruling Defendant’s motion to sever; (2) excluding statements made by a confidential informant; (3) limiting the scope of Defendant’s cross-examination of the State’s primary witness; (4) instructing the jury; (5) overruling Defendant’s motion for new trial on the basis of juror misconduct; and (6) overruling Defendant’s motion to reopen the evidence. Further, Defendant failed to preserve his claim of prosecutorial misconduct for appellate review. View "State v. Stricklin" on Justia Law

Husband filed a complaint for dissolution of his marriage to Wife and sought sole custody of the parties’ child. Wife counterclaimed requesting sole custody. The trial court awarded Husband permanent legal and physical custody of the child, ordered Wife to pay child support, ordered Husband to pay alimony, allowed Wife to claim the dependency exemption in even-numbered years, and awarded Wife attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding that the court abused its discretion by ordering the parties to alternately claim the dependency exemption for their child but otherwise did not err in its judgment. Modified to award solely to Husband the dependency exemption attributable to the parties’ child. View "Anderson v. Anderson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of robbery and kidnapping. The Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the motion without a hearing. The Supreme Court remanded for a hearing on the issue of whether Defendant’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a witness to corroborate Defendant’s alibi defense. After an evidentiary hearing on remand, the district court again denied postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly found that Defendant failed to show he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. View "State v. Branch" on Justia Law

Buyers purchased a building from Seller that had formerly been leased as a dental clinic. Buyers planned to transform the building into their personal residence. After the parties closed on the property, Buyers discovered that the interior doors had been removed. Buyers commenced a small claims action against Seller seeking damages or the return of the property. The county court entered judgment in favor of Buyers. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the doctrine of merger was inapplicable in this case because Seller had a duty to disclose that the interior doors would be removed, and Seller’s nondisclosure amounted to a misrepresentation; (2) the doors were fixtures rather than trade fixtures and thus were not removable by the former tenant; and (3) the county court’s award of damages was supported by competent evidence. View "Griffith v. Drew’s LLC" on Justia Law

Between 2004 and 2009, Valpak of Omaha, LLC (“Valpak”) paid more than $5.5 million to Val-pak Direct Marketing Systems, Inc. (“Direct Marketing”) to print direct mail advertisements and distribute them around Omaha, Nebraska. The Nebraska Department of Revenue assessed use taxes on that amount. Valpak asked the Tax Commissioner for a redetermination that no taxes were due, arguing that its payments to Direct Marketing were not transactions that were subject to use taxes under Nebraska law. The Tax Commissioner denied Valpak’s petitions for redetermination, concluding that Valpak was subject to use taxes under the Department’s sales and use tax regulations. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court also affirmed, holding that Valpak was an advertising agency and was liable for use taxes on its payment to Direct Marketing. View "Valpak of Omaha, LLC v. Neb. Dep’t of Revenue" on Justia Law