Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of robbery and sentenced to six to ten years’ imprisonment. A codefendant was tried with Defendant and was convicted of the same crime. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence, holding that the district court did not err in (1) denying Defendant’s motion to transfer the case to juvenile court; (2) denying Defendant’s motion to sever his trial; (3) allowing the State to impeach two witnesses who were also arrested in connection with the robbery with their prior inconsistent statements; (4) giving an aiding and abetting instruction to the jury; and (5) sentencing Defendant to six to ten years’ imprisonment. View "State v. Dominguez" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of robbery and sentenced to six to ten years’ imprisonment. A codefendant was tried alongside Defendant and was convicted of the same crime. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the district court did not err in (1) denying Defendant’s motion to transfer the case to juvenile court; (2) denying Defendant’s motion to sever his trial; (3) allowing a witness to make an in-court identification of Defendant; (4) allowing the State to impeach two witnesses who were also arrested in connection with the robbery with their prior inconsistent statements; and (5) sentencing Defendant to six to ten years’ imprisonment. View "State v. Stevens" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint against the City of Omaha pursuant to the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act seeking damages for injuries he sustained when he was struck by a stolen vehicle allegedly being pursued by Omaha police officers. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding that any pursuit had terminated prior to the accident and that the officers’ actions were not the proximate cause of the accident in which Plaintiff was injured. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) finding that any pursuit was terminated prior to the accident; and (2) finding that the officers’ actions were not the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s damages and in applying the applicable law with respect to proximate cause. View "Maclovi-Sierra v. City of Omaha" on Justia Law

Kyle Kercher sued the Board of Regents at the University of Nebraska and the University of Nebraska at Omaha (collectively, “the University”), alleging that the University breached his employment contract when it removed him from his appointed professorship that he alleged was a part of his tenured appointment as a faculty member. The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Kercher on the issue of liability. Damages were stipulated by the parties, save for the issue of attorney fees. The University appealed the judgment against it, and Kercher cross-appealed the district court’s order awarding him attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly granted Kercher’s motion for partial summary judgment and did not abuse its discretion in its award of attorney fees for Kercher. View "Kercher v. Board of Regents" on Justia Law

William Gross executed an agreement with David Fiala, Ltd. (FuturesOne) setting forth the terms of Gross’ employment with FuturesOne. The agreement contained an arbitration provision. FuturesOne later filed a complaint against Gross and three other individuals who had signed similar agreements with FuturesOne, alleging that after the defendants had resigned from FuturesOne they failed to pay amounts owed to FuturesOne and violated the agreement by competing with FuturesOne. Gross moved to compel arbitration. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the claims in this action were not subject to arbitration under the arbitration provision of the agreement. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred as a matter of law when it failed to determine that the arbitration provision was ambiguous and to thereafter resolve the ambiguity by considering appropriate extrinsic evidence. Remanded. View "David Fiala Ltd. v. Harrison" on Justia Law

Jan Golnick filed a complaint alleging that he sustained injuries as a direct and proximate result of a crash with the vehicle driven by Jack Callender. Callender admitted in his answer that he was negligent in causing the vehicle accident that injured Golnick. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did commit prejudicial error in (1) denying Golnick’s request to amend his complaint to allege specific acts of tortious conduct; (2) sustaining Callender’s motion to prohibit Golnick from presenting evidence of Callender’s negligence at trial; and (3) rejecting three of Golnick’s proposed jury instructions. View "Golnick v. Callender" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a firearm to commit a felony. The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Defendant later filed a second amended motion for postconviction relief, raising the same four claims of ineffective assistance of counsel as he did on direct appeal and thirty-one new claims for postconviction relief. The district court granted a hearing on Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims, along with three new claims, and rejected the remaining claims on the grounds that the claims either had no merit or did not allege facts with sufficiently specificity regarding prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s request for a hearing on twenty-eight of his thirty-five grounds for post-conviction relief. View "State v. Cook" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with felony escape. In an amended information, Defendant was also charged with being a habitual criminal. The trial court convicted Defendant of escape and sentenced him as a habitual criminal. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) the habitual criminal statute was unconstitutional on its face and as applied, (2) the State’s motion to amend the information was untimely, and (3) his sentence was excessive. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Defendant did not raise the alleged untimeliness of the State’s amendment to the information in the proceedings below, he waived that objection, and Defendant was not prejudiced when the trial court allowed the amendment; (2) the habitual criminal statutes do not violate the right to a jury trial or double jeopardy protections under the U.S. and Nebraska Constitutions; and (3) the application of the habitual criminal enhancement and the resulting sentence was neither excessive or disproportionate, nor cruel and unusual. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Cole Hodson was invited by Whitney Taylor to the residence of her parents, Bradley and Laura Taylor, for the purpose of swimming and boating in the Willers Cove lake. While diving into the water, Hodson abruptly came into contact with something in the water. As a result, Hodson was paralyzed and without feeling from the chest down. Hodson filed this action alleging (1) the Taylors were negligent in failing to warn users of Willers Cove of the dangerous condition of the lake and in allowing Whitney use the boat without supervision; (2) the Willers Cove Association (WCOA), which owned and maintained the lake, should have known of dangerous conditions in the lake; and (3) Ronald and Marilyn Willers, who created the lake, negligently constructed a culvert which led to the dangerous condition that caused Hodson’s injury. The district court granted summery judgment in favor of the defendants. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the district court’s determination that the Recreational Liability Act applied to the Taylors; (2) affirmed the district court’s granting of summary judgment to the Willers; and (3) reversed the court’s finding that the open and obvious doctrine applied to bar the WCOA’s liability. Remanded to determine the negligence of the Taylors and the WCOA. View "Hodson v. Taylor" on Justia Law

After Bel Fury Investments Group, LLC failed to pay assessments for property it owned in the Twin Towers Condominium (Unit SCB), the Twin Towers Condominium Association (the Association) recorded two notices of lien and filed a foreclosure action. The Association initially levied assessments against Unit SCB in a manner prohibited by the Association’s governing documents, but the Association recalculated the assessments when it discovered the error while the foreclosure action was pending. The district court ultimately found that the Association had a lien against Unit SCB for delinquent assessments. Both parties appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Association’s initial miscalculation of assessments did not invalidate its lien; (2) the court erred by not awarding the Association attorney fees and not including several installments as part of the debt secured by the lien; and (3) the court erred by failing to include in its decree a legal description of the property subject to the lien. View "Twin Towers Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Bel Fury Invs. Group, LLC" on Justia Law