Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Elizabeth Vasholz testified that she was living with her husband, Raymond, in their home when Defendant broke into the house, demanded money, assaulted her and Raymond, and set several objects on fire. Elizabeth escaped the house, but Raymond died from smoke inhalation. A jury convicted Defendant of first degree murder. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in allowing two witnesses to testify about out-of-court statements made by Elizabeth. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court correctly overruled Defendant’s hearsay objections on the ground that the statements were excited utterances; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction. View "State v. Hale" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with first degree sexual assault. Defendant was brought to trial on the charge two separate times. Each time, the trial ended in mistrial. After the first mistrial, Defendant filed a plea in bar to his retrial, alleging that double jeopardy barred retrial. The district court overruled the plea in bar, and the Supreme Court affirmed. After the second mistrial, Defendant filed a plea in bar arguing that double jeopardy barred retrial. The district court denied the plea in bar. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that double jeopardy did not bar a third trial of Defendant, and the district court did not err in overruling his plea in bar. View "State v. Muhannad" on Justia Law

John Hughes, the parent of a student at a middle school in Aurora, Nebraska, tripped and fell while exiting the middle school building. Hughes sued the owner of the building, the School District of Aurora, alleging that the District failed to maintain sufficient lighting at the building’s exit, failed to construct a proper handrail along an exit ramp, allowed a section of sidewalk to “heave,” and allowed a concrete bench to obstruct the path of egress. The district court granted summary judgment for the District because Hughes was not sure what caused him to fall. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because reasonable minds could draw contrary conclusions from the evidence presented, the District did not show it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. View "Hughes v. Sch. Dist. of Aurora" on Justia Law

Abigail Despain and William Despain were married in June 2012. Abigail filed a complaint for the dissolution of the marriage in August 2012. After a trial, the district court filed a decree of dissolution of marriage, including orders regarding property division. Before the decree was filed, William filed a motion for new trial challenging the district court’s division of property. After the decree was filed, the court filed an order overruling William’s motion for new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) William’s motion for new trial was an effective filing, and the appeal was timely; and (2) with respect to property division, the district court erred in the method it employed when it calculated the equalization payment owed by William to Abigail. View "Despain v. Despain" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of first degree murder, one count of attempted first degree murder, and three counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences on direct appeal. Defendant then moved for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. The district court denied postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing, concluding that Defendant’s allegations consisted solely of conclusory statements. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s assertions of ineffective assistance of counsel failed to establish any prejudice resulting from the alleged deficiencies of his counsel; and (2) Defendant’s claim of instructional error was not presented as a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel before the district court and was therefore not preserved for review. View "State v. Sellers" on Justia Law

Ordinance No. 611 of the City of Valley, Nebraska authorized the annexation of land near Valley’s corporate border, some of which included Sanitary and Improvement District No. 196 (SID 196). SID 196 filed a complaint seeking to declare the ordinance invalid and seeking to enjoin Valley from enforcing the ordinance. Valley filed a motion for summary judgment, and both parties presented evidence from expert witnesses. The district court ultimately granted summary judgment for Valley and declared the ordinance valid. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in concluding that ordinance No. 611 is valid and in therefore granting summary judgment. View "Sanitary & Improvement Dist. No. 196 v. City of Valley" on Justia Law

Improper transfers were made from a title insurance agent’s escrow account. The agent’s principal, United General Title Insurance Company, paid the loss and then sued to recover the loss from multiple entities and persons, including recipients of the transferred funds. United General recovered judgment against some entities and persons, but summary judgment was entered against it on various claims. After a jury trial, several recipients of the transferred funds successfully defended the action on the remaining issues. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) the district court correctly granted summary judgment, with the exception of United General’s claims for conversion and a constructive trust; (2) there was no merit to the alleged errors that United General asserted occurred at trials; and (3) after trial, the district court correctly granted a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. View "United Gen. Title Ins. Co. v. Malone" on Justia Law

Pursuant to the City of Omaha’s home rule charter, the Omaha City Council enacted an ordinance creating the City of Omaha Police and Fire Retirement System (System), which was administered by a board of trustees. The board commenced this declaratory judgment action against the City asking the district court to construe Omaha’s home rule charter and applicable ordinances to authorize the board to retain an actuarial consultant and private legal counsel at city expense. The district court granted summary judgment for the board. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified as to the issue of the board’s authority to retain consultants and reversed and vacated the portion of the judgment declaring that the board had discretion to hire independent legal counsel whenever it deemed such retention to be necessary, holding (1) the district court lacked jurisdiction to determine the authority of the board to retain outside consultants other than an actuary; but (2) the court did not err in determining that the board had legal authority to retain an actuary to undertake a study of disability benefits paid from the System’s trust fund and that the cost of such a study is an administrative expense payable by appropriation from the City’s general fund. View "Board of Trustees v. City of Omaha" on Justia Law

Marion’s Quality Services, Inc. was a Nebraska corporation doing business as It’s a Kidz World Child Care Center (Center) and as Deb’s Learning Place Family Child Care Home II (Home). In 2012, the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), a state agency responsible for the enforcement of the Child Care Licensing Act, revoked Marion’s licenses to operate the Center and the Home. Marion’s submitted an administrative appeal, and the cases were consolidated. After an administrative appeal hearing, DHHS upheld the revocation of the license for the Home but reversed the revocation of the Center’s license. In lieu of revocation of the license, DHHS imposed an alternative penalty in the form of additional probation and a civil penalty. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court’s ruling upholding DHHS’ findings regarding the Center’s license was supported by competent evidence and was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable; and (2) the district court’s ruling upholding DHHS’ findings regarding the Home’s license was supported by competent evidence, conformed to the law, and was not arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise unreasonable. View "Marion’s Quality Servs., Inc. v. Neb. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree sexual abuse of an inmate or parolee for having sex with a parolee while he was employed as an officer by the Department of Correctional Services. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because it did not show that he had control over the parolee. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; (2) Defendant’s conviction under the relevant statutes did not violate his rights to intimate association and equal protection; and (3) the district court adequately instructed the jury. View "State v. Loyuk" on Justia Law