Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellants in this case were the Professional Firefighters Association of Omaha, Local 385, the president of the association, and individual employees covered by the bargaining unit represented by Local 385 (collectively, the firefighters). The firefighters filed two declaratory judgment actions in the district court seeking declarations that the City of Omaha was misinterpreting the terms of orders entered by Nebraska’s Commission of Industrial Relations (CIR). The district court determined that the City owed additional wages because it failed to comply with the CIR orders. The firefighters then brought this suit under the Nebraska Wage Payment and Collection Act (the Act) for wages they claimed were due under the CIR orders. The district court concluded that the firefighters had no valid claim under the Act. At issue in this consolidated appeal was whether the wages were “agreed to” at the time of the final CIR order or whether they were “agreed to” when the declaratory judgment actions were resolved. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the wages were agreed to on the date of the final CIR order, and therefore, the district court erred in determining that the firefighters did not have a valid claim under the Act. View "Prof’l Firefighters Ass’n of Omaha v. City of Omaha" on Justia Law

DMK Biodiesel, LLC and Lanoha RVBF, LLC (collectively, Plaintiffs) brought an action against Renewable Fuels Technology, LLC and several individual defendants (collectively, Defendants), alleging that Defendants violated violated Neb. Rev. Stat. 8-1118(1) by selling a security by means of an untrue statement of material fact. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants, acting in concert as members and the manager of Republican Valley Biofuels, LLC (RVBF), made false oral representations and omissions in connection with RVBF and a proposed biodiesel facility that induced their investment. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court reversed because, in granting the motion to dismiss, the district court considered matters outside the pleadings without conducting an evidentiary hearing. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in entering summary judgment with respect to Plaintiff’s section 8-1118(1) claim because there remained genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment. View "DMK Biodiesel, LLC v. McCoy" on Justia Law

Defendant executed a promissory note in favor of the entity that was soon to merge with First Tennessee Bank National Association. The note was secured by a deed of trust for property in California. First Tennessee later filed a complaint against Defendant, alleging that he was in default on the note and seeking damages in the amount of $274,467. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant, concluding that First Tennessee’s claim was barred by a California statute of limitations. First Tennessee appealed, arguing that the district court erred in finding that the limitations period was not tolled by either a California statute or provision of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the California tolling statute could not be applied against Defendant, a nonresident of California, without violating the Commerce Clause; and (2) although Defendant was a member of the National Guard, he was neither on “active duty” during his membership nor had he ever been called to active service, and therefore, the SCRA provided no basis to toll the limitations period. View "First Tenn. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Newham" on Justia Law

When approached by a police officer on suspicion of selling stolen goods, Defendant falsely told the officer that his name was “Daniel Jones.” Defendant later identified himself truthfully as “James Covey.” There was no evidence at trial that the name “Daniel Jones” corresponded to an actual person. Defendant was charged with criminal impersonation in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-638(1)(c). Defendant filed a plea in abatement and moved to dismiss the charge on the ground that criminal impersonation did not apply to the utterance of a name of a fictitious individual. The trial court overruled the plea in abatement and motion to dismiss. After a trial, the jury found Defendant guilty of criminal impersonation. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the evidence was insufficient to convict Defendant of criminal impersonation because the State failed to show that the false name Defendant provided to the police officer corresponded with any actual person. View "State v. Covey" on Justia Law

The marriage of Mother and Father was dissolved, and Mother was awarded sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ two minor children. Father was ordered to pay child support. Father subsequently filed a complaint for modification of custody seeking sole custody of the children or, in the alternative, joint legal and physical custody of the children. After a hearing, the district court awarded the parties joint physical custody and placed legal custody with the court. The Supreme Court vacated the order of modification and remanded, holding that the district court abused its discretion in making a custody determination without making special written findings regarding Father’s conviction of third degree domestic assault in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-2932. View "Flores v. Flores-Guerrero" on Justia Law

Synergy4 Enterprises, Inc. brought an action against Pinnacle Bank on claims of promissory estoppel, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud, alleging that Pinnacle Bank caused damages by orally assuring Synergy4 that Pinnacle would provide a $1 million credit line and then only providing $400,000 provided for in a commitment letter. The district court sustained Pinnacle’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that Synergy4’s claims were barred by Nebraska’s credit agreement statute of frauds. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Synergy4’s claims were based on a credit agreement that was not in writing, they were barred by Nebraska’s credit agreement statute of frauds. View "Synergy4 Enters., Inc. v. Pinnacle Bank" on Justia Law

Buyer entered into a contract with Seller under which Buyer agreed to purchase certain product manufactured by Seller. Buyer rarely purchased the contractual amount of 2,500 tons of product per month. Seller field an amended complaint against Seller, claiming breach of contract and alleging that Buyer’s failure to comply with the contract forced Seller to sell over 9,000 tons of product at prices significantly below the price Seller was guaranteed by the contract. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Seller, concluding, as a matter of law, that Buyer materially breached the contract. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the judgment of the district court regarding Buyer’s liability for its material breach of the contract; but (2) reversed the court’s award of damages and prejudgment interest, holding that the court erred in awarding damages and prejudgment interest at the summary judgment stage due the existence of questions of fact relevant to Seller’s losses. Remanded. View "Siouxland Ethanol, LLC v. Sebade Bros., LLC" on Justia Law

The settlor (Settlor) directed her attorney to prepare an irrevocable trust, the corpus of which was three insurance policies, that named the attorney as the trustee (Trustee). The policies were payable on the Settlor’s death to the Trustee for the benefit of the Settlor’s daughters. The Trustee executed all three insurance policy applications. Each application provided the insurer with a false address for the trust. The policies subsequently lapsed for nonpayment of the premiums due. Although the insurers issued notices of nonpayment of the premiums, the Settlor, Trustee, and beneficiaries did not receive notice of the lapse until two years later. The Settlor and her daughters (collectively, Appellants) sued the Trustee, alleging that he breached his fiduciary duties as trustee and, as a result, the policies lapsed, resulting in the loss of the initial premiums. The trial court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the Trustee did not have a duty to pay the premiums or to notify anyone of the nonpayment of the premiums. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Trustee had a statutory duty, which arose when the insurers issued the notices of nonpayment of the premiums, to inform Appellants of the material facts necessary for them to protect their interests. View "Rafert v. Meyer" on Justia Law

Appellant was injured while working as a staff home nurse at the Eastern Nebraska Veterans’ Home. Appellant filed a petition in Workers’ Compensation Court alleging that she suffered from complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) and had sustained injuries to her left and right upper limbs as a result of the accident. The compensation found that Appellant was entitled to temporary total disability (TTD) benefits and permanent partial disability benefits. Appellant appealed the award. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the compensation court (1) did not err in finding that Appellant was permanently partially disabled and suffered a seventy-five percent loss of earning capacity; (2) did not err by denying Appellant a waiting-time penalty, attorney fees, and interest; but (3) erred in failing to consider mileage expenses for all of Appellant’s travel to injury-related medical appointments. Remanded. View "Armstrong v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of third degree assault of an officer and one count of possession of a controlled substance. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding (1) the district court did not err in overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence gathered by a law enforcement officer, as the evidence was obtained in accordance with the protections set forth under the Fourth Amendment; and (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction of third degree assault of an officer. View "State v. Wells" on Justia Law