Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court overruling Appellant's motion for disqualification and his criminal sentences imposed in connection with no contest pleas to four felony charges in relation to a law enforcement officer-involved shooting, holding that Appellant identified no error requiring reversal.After the information against him was filed and the matter was assigned to the district court Appellant timely filed a motion to disqualify the trial judge, arguing that the reasonable person viewing the circumstances would question the court's impartiality. The trial court overruled the motion. Appellant later pleaded no contest to four felony charges, and the court sentenced him to consecutive terms of incarceration for a total of ninety-six to 116 years' imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in overruling Appellant's motion for disqualification and did not abuse its discretion in fashioning an appropriate sentence. View "State v. Ezell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal of the judgment of the district court affirming the order of the Nebraska Police Standards Advisory Council denying Appellant admission into the basic officer certification training at the Nebraska Law Enforcement Training Center, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction, and therefore, so did this Court.Appellant sought judicial review of the decision of the Council upholding the denial by the Director of the Training Center of Appellant's application for entrance into basic training for failure to meet the minimum requirements for admission. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal, holding that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider Appellant's petition because he failed properly to make the Director a party to the proceedings for review. View "Swicord v. Police Standards Advisory Council" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's convictions and sentences on four felony charges after a jury trial during which Defendant raised a defense of not responsible by reason of insanity, holding that there was plain error in the jury instructions, requiring reversal.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person, second degree assault on an officer, first degree attempted assault on an officer, and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony and sentenced to not less than fifty-seven nor more than seventy-nine years' imprisonment. The Supreme Court vacated the convictions and remanded the case, holding (1) Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2203(4) does not affect this Court's precedent regarding settled insanity; and (2) the jury was not properly instructed as to settled insanity, and the jury instructions prejudicially affected Defendant's substantial rights, requiring reversal. View "State v. Brennauer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court upholding the decision of the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services Appeals Board (Appeals Board) upholding the decision of the Institutional Disciplinary Committee (IDC) to sanction Appellant for drug use while in prison, holding that there was no plain error.Appellant, an inmate incarcerated under the custody of the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (NDCS), was issued a misconduct charge for "Drug or Intoxicant Abuse" in violation of an NDCS rule. After a hearing, the IDC found that Appellant had violated the rule. The Appeals Board upheld the decision, and the district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not commit plain error in concluding that the evidence was sufficient to uphold the IDC's finding that Appellant violated the rule at issue. View "Haynes v. Neb. Dep't of Correctional Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the underlying eviction proceedings brought under Nebraska's Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (the NURLTA), Neb. Rev. Stat. 76-1401, holding that this case was moot.After Defendant allegedly breached the terms of her residential lease agreement Plaintiff, Defendant's landlord, terminated the lease. When Defendant refused to leave the property Plaintiff initiated eviction proceedings. The county court found in favor of Plaintiff and issued a writ of restitution. Defendant appealed, holding that section 76-1446, which mandates a bench trial for a possession action under the NURLTA, violated her constitutional right to a jury trial. The Supreme Court dismissed Defendant's appeal, holding that Defendant's arguments on appeal were moot, and none of the mootness exceptions applied. View "NP Dodge Management Co. v. Holcomb" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant and dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff's action for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident, holding that Plaintiff's first amended complaint validly commenced a proceeding within the applicable limitations period.Plaintiff filed a complaint against the David Mach, the special administrator for the Estate of Leo Mach, alleging negligence. Because, after filing the complaint, Plaintiff learned that the estate had closed and that David had been discharged as special administrator, Plaintiff moved to reopen the estate and reappoint David as special administrator. The county court granted the motion, and Plaintiff served David with the summons and the original complaint. Plaintiff later moved to amend the complaint, which the court sustained. Plaintiff then filed a second amended complaint. The district court granted summary judgment for David, and the court of appeals affirmed, finding that the original filing was a nullity. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Plaintiff's first amended complaint validly commenced. Proceeding within the applicable limitations period. View "Sparks v. Mach" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the district court finding that the city council of the City of Fremont (Council) and the City of Fremont (City) lacked reasonable sufficient evidence to terminate a contract with the Dodge County Humane Society for animal control, holding that the district court lacked petition in error jurisdiction to review the decision.At a regularly scheduled meeting, the Council approved a motion authorizing Fremont's mayor to terminate the contract for animal control. The Humane Society later filed a petition in error alleging that the Council and the City had no cause to terminate the contract. Thereafter, the district court entered a temporary injunction / temporary restraining order in favor of the Humane Society. The County and City moved to dismiss, asserting that the Council's decision to authorize the mayor to send a letter was not an action that could support a petition in error. The district court sustained the petition in error and ordered the contract to be reinstated. The Supreme Court vacated the order below, holding (1) the Council did not exercise a judicial or quasi-judicial function in voting on the motion to send the disputed letter to the Humane Society; and (2) therefore, the district court lacked jurisdiction to review this action. View "Dodge County Humane Society v. City of Fremont" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part the judgment of the district court granting Defendant's motion for a directed verdict in this breach of contract action and remanded the cause for a new trial, holding that the district court erred by granting a directed verdict on statute of frauds grounds.Defendant, a limited liability company, asked Plaintiff, a certified public accountant (and his professional corporation), to provide accountancy services in connection with Defendant's development of a residential neighborhood. After Plaintiff provided the agreed-upon services and Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff brought suit for breach of an oral contract. The district court granted Defendant's motion for a directed verdict, concluding that the parties' oral agreement was unenforceable because it fell under Neb. Rev. Stat. 36-202(1), a provision of the statute of frauds requiring agreements "not to be performed within one year" to be in writing. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a reasonable jury could find the parties formed an enforceable contract; (2) because the contract did not have to be in writing under section 36-202(1), the district court erred in granting a directed verdict on that ground; and (3) there was no other basis upon which to grant a directed verdict. View "Bruce Lavalleur, P.C. v. Guarantee Group, L.L.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convincing Defendant of first degree murder and use of a weapon to commit a felony, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the evidence to sufficient to support the jury's verdicts; (2) there was no juror misconduct during deliberations when jurors allegedly discussed the reputation of the victim's family members and their potentially seeking revenge; (3) the trial court did not err by finding the averment of a juror about the disputed juror statements inadmissible under Neb. Rev. Stat. 27-606(2) and finding that the exception for "extraneous prejudicial information" did not apply to the juror's testimony; and (4) trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel. View "State v. Allen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court imposing both imprisonment and post-release supervision in a criminal case, holding that there was no merit to Appellant's claims on appeal.Appellant pleaded no contest to a Class IIIA felony and a Class I misdemeanor. The district court sentenced Appellant to a term of imprisonment and to one year of post-release supervision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) any alleged error regarding Appellant's purported failure to be advised of the conditions of her post-release supervision did not prejudicially affect Appellant's substantial rights; (2) the district court did not impose excessive sentences; and (3) Appellant's last assignment of error was moot. View "State v. Applehans" on Justia Law