Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This case involves a dispute between a decedent's wife and the co-personal representatives of the decedent's estate over the ownership of $100,000 and a camper under the terms of a premarital agreement. The decedent's wife, Yvonne M. White, argued that she was entitled to these assets based on the premarital agreement she had with her late husband, Leonard P. White. The co-personal representatives of Leonard's estate, his sons Jamison Patrick White and Ryan Howard White, contested this claim.The District Court for Washington County, Nebraska, ruled in favor of Yvonne, awarding her the $100,000 and the camper. The co-personal representatives appealed this decision to the Nebraska Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower court's ruling. They then sought further review from the Nebraska Supreme Court.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The court found that Yvonne's suit for the $100,000 and the camper did not constitute a "claim" against the estate, but rather, she was a beneficiary of the estate entitled to the assets she sought under a breach of contract theory according to the terms of the premarital agreement. Therefore, her suit was not subject to the nonclaim statute's requirements for the timely filing of a claim. The court also found that the camper was a joint asset under the premarital agreement, rejecting the co-personal representatives' argument that it was the decedent's separate property. View "White v. White" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the interpretation of the Michael Hessler Living Trust. Michael Hessler, the settlor of the trust, had three children: Heidi Shaddick, Amber Rocha, and Brock Hessler. He also had a romantic relationship with Lori J. Miller. After Hessler's death, the successor trustee of the trust, Robert Hessler, deeded a house to Miller and allocated all inheritance tax to the trust's residuary, which was to be divided among Hessler's three children. The children sued, arguing that the inheritance tax should be equitably apportioned among all beneficiaries, including Miller.The case was initially filed in Lancaster County, but the trustee successfully moved to transfer the case to Scotts Bluff County, where the trust was registered. The children challenged this decision, arguing that the case should have been heard in Lancaster County, where the real estate in question was located.The county court for Scotts Bluff County granted Miller's motion for partial summary judgment on the inheritance tax issue, ruling that the language of the trust was clear enough to override the statutory pattern that would otherwise presume equitable apportionment of inheritance tax. The court concluded that the trust's language indicated that all inheritance taxes were to be paid from the trust's residue, not by the individual beneficiaries. The children appealed this decision.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision. It ruled that the order transferring venue to Scotts Bluff County was not a final order and could be challenged in the appeal. The court also found no error in the lower court's decision to admit an affidavit from the attorney who drafted the trust. Finally, the court agreed with the lower court's interpretation of the trust, concluding that the trust's language clearly indicated that inheritance taxes were to be paid by the trust rather than by the individual beneficiaries. View "In re Hessler Living Trust" on Justia Law

The case involves Joseph C. Boeggeman, who was convicted in Nebraska for two counts of attempted first degree sexual assault and one count of attempted third degree sexual assault. During the Nebraska criminal proceedings, Boeggeman was serving an unrelated sentence in Massachusetts. After his sentencing hearing in Nebraska in February 2017, and before the time for filing an appeal had expired, Boeggeman was returned to Massachusetts, where he remained until January 2020.Boeggeman filed a motion for postconviction relief in December 2020, arguing that there was a discrepancy between the trial court's pronounced sentence and its written sentencing order regarding whether his Nebraska sentences were to run concurrently with or consecutively to his Massachusetts sentence. The district court denied his motion without an evidentiary hearing, concluding that his motion was untimely and that equitable tolling did not apply to the 1-year limitation of § 29-3001(4).The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the 1-year limitation period for filing a postconviction motion under § 29-3001(4) is not subject to equitable tolling. The court also noted that postconviction relief is only available where a constitutional violation renders the judgment void or voidable, and Boeggeman's supplemental allegations, which all occurred after his judgment was entered, had no bearing on the underlying judgment. View "State v. Boeggeman" on Justia Law

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences of Bailey M. Boswell for premeditated first degree murder, conspiracy to commit first degree murder, and improper disposal of human skeletal remains. Boswell and her co-conspirator, Aubrey C. Trail, were charged after the dismembered remains of 24-year-old Sydney Loofe were discovered. The court found no error in the district court's evidentiary rulings, which included the admission of photographs of Loofe's dismembered body, evidence of sex toys, sexual fantasies, and sexual torture, testimony about witchcraft and the occult, and hearsay statements by Trail under the coconspirator exemption to the hearsay rule. The court held that the evidence was relevant and admissible under Nebraska law, and that its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The court also found that the State had sufficiently proved the existence of a conspiracy through independent evidence, allowing for the admission of Trail's statements under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule. View "State v. Boswell" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the interpretation of a provision in the Eileen Ryan Revocable Trust. The provision in question bequeathed $5 million in "Countable Assets" to each of Eileen’s five children. Constance M. Ryan, one of the children, argued that she had not yet received the full amount of Countable Assets. She contended that certain gifts she had received during Eileen’s lifetime were intended to be separate from the testamentary bequests made in Eileen’s trust instruments and therefore, such gifts would not reduce the amount she would receive under the Countable Assets provision.The County Court for Douglas County found that Constance had already received more than the $5 million due in Countable Assets based on the language of the trust instrument and evidence. The court granted summary judgment against Constance on all issues and dismissed her petition. Constance appealed this decision.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the trust agreement was unambiguous and that the distributions Constance received from irrevocable trusts during Eileen’s lifetime were Countable Assets. Therefore, Constance had already received the $5 million bequest and was not entitled to additional assets. The court also rejected Constance's request to reform the trust agreement, finding no evidence that both Eileen’s intent and the terms of the trust were affected by a mistake of fact or law. View "In re Eileen Ryan Revocable Trust" on Justia Law

The case involves Makhi Woolridge-Jones, who was convicted of second-degree murder, second-degree assault, and two counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. The charges stemmed from a shooting at a shopping mall that resulted in the death of one man and injury to a woman. Woolridge-Jones fired multiple shots, hitting the man. On appeal, Woolridge-Jones argued that the district court erred in excluding expert testimony that would have opined that the initial shot fired by him put him in a state of peritraumatic dissociation. He also claimed that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that his sentences were excessive.The District Court for Douglas County had previously found Woolridge-Jones guilty of the lesser-included offense of second-degree murder, second-degree assault, and two counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. The court had also excluded the expert testimony of a licensed psychologist who had evaluated Woolridge-Jones and opined that he experienced symptoms of peritraumatic dissociation during the shooting incident.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the expert's testimony would not have assisted the jury in determining whether Woolridge-Jones acted with the requisite intent to be found guilty of second-degree murder. The court also found that there was sufficient evidence to support Woolridge-Jones' convictions and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing him. View "State v. Woolridge-Jones" on Justia Law

The Nebraska Supreme Court ruled that the State of Nebraska and the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) are immune from a lawsuit brought by three siblings who were physically and sexually abused in a foster home. The siblings, Joshua M., Sydnie M., and Abigail S., were placed in the foster home by DHHS in 1996. They alleged that DHHS was negligent in recommending and supervising their placement and in failing to remove them from the home when DHHS knew or should have known they were being abused. The court found that the siblings' claims fell within the State Tort Claims Act's exemption for claims arising out of assault or battery, and thus were barred by the State's sovereign immunity. The court also found that DHHS did not breach its duty of care to the siblings. The court affirmed the judgment in favor of DHHS and remanded the case with directions to dismiss the claims against DHHS. The court also affirmed a judgment against the siblings' former foster parent in the amount of $2.9 million. View "Joshua M. v. State" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, Saint James Apartment Partners, LLC, Central States Development, LLC, and John C. Foley, filed a civil action against Universal Surety Company, alleging that a notary public covered under Universal's bond engaged in negligent conduct. The plaintiffs did not include the notary public as a party to the action. Universal filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to join the notary public as a necessary party and that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The district court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice, concluding that Nebraska law required the plaintiffs to join the notary public in the action.The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the district court's decision. The court held that an involuntary dismissal for a lack of a necessary party, which leaves nothing remaining for the trial court to do, is a final order over which an appellate court may exercise jurisdiction. The court also held that Nebraska law does not require a person suing under the official bond of a notary public to join the notary as a necessary party to the action. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion. View "Saint James Apt. Partners v. Univeral Surety Co." on Justia Law

The case involves RaySean Barber, an inmate in the custody of the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (DCS), who was diagnosed with a mental illness. Barber refused treatment with antipsychotic medications, leading DCS medical staff to apply for a series of involuntary medication orders (IMOs) authorizing monthly injections of the antipsychotic medication Haldol against his will. Barber filed a lawsuit against the State of Nebraska under the State Tort Claims Act (STCA), alleging that DCS employees were negligent in applying for, ordering the initiation and continuation of, and upholding the IMOs.The State moved to dismiss Barber's complaint, arguing that the claim was barred by the STCA’s exemption for any claim arising out of battery. The district court agreed and dismissed the complaint, reasoning that the unconsented and involuntary injection is the cause of Barber’s alleged injury—a battery.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. The court concluded that Barber's claim—that DCS staff negligently subjected him to an IMO and injected him with Haldol against his will—is a claim that arises out of a battery. The court held that because Barber's claim arose out of a battery, it is barred by the exemption in the STCA. View "Barber v. State" on Justia Law

The case involves an appeal against a county court's decision to appoint a permanent guardian for Patrick W., an individual deemed incapacitated due to a stroke. The appellant, Patrick W., argued that the court erred in admitting a neuropsychological report as evidence over his hearsay objection and that without this report, the evidence was insufficient to prove his incapacitation.Previously, Adult Protective Services (APS) had opened an investigation into Patrick's medical needs and financial management. Concerned about Patrick's vulnerability to financial exploitation, self-neglect, and undue influence, APS contacted an attorney to inquire about establishing a guardianship. Becky Stamp was identified as a potential guardian. The county court appointed Stamp as Patrick's temporary guardian, and later, Patrick's cousin, Terry Crandall, was substituted as the temporary guardian. The court also ordered Patrick to undergo a neuropsychological evaluation.At the guardianship hearing, the county court received several exhibits into evidence and heard testimony from six witnesses, including Patrick. The court found clear and convincing evidence that Patrick was incapacitated and appointed Crandall as his permanent guardian.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the county court's decision. It held that the neuropsychological report was admissible in evidence under Nebraska Revised Statute § 30-4204, as it was a medical report obtained by the guardian ad litem regarding the person for whom she was appointed. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the county court's finding that Patrick was incapacitated and that a full guardianship was the least restrictive alternative to provide for his continuing care. View "In re Guardianship of Patrick W." on Justia Law