Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 1999, Appellant pled no contest to first degree murder. Appellant was eighteen years old at the time of the offense. Appellant was sentenced to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, and Appellant’s first postconviction motion was denied. Appellant filed a second motion for postconviction relief, claiming that she was a “minor” as defined under certain Nebraska law at the time of her offense, and therefore, her life sentence was unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama. The district court denied the motion, concluding that because Appellant was not under the age of eighteen at the time of her offense, Miller did not apply to her case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the relief afforded in Miller and resulting resentencing under Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-105.02 apply to persons who were under the age of eighteen at the time of their crimes and therefore did not apply to Defendant. View "State v. Wetherell" on Justia Law

A court is required to dismiss a forcible entry and detainer action upon receiving evidence of the existence of a title dispute. In this case, Plaintiff filed a forcible entry and detainer complaint against Defendants in the county court. Defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the county court, alleging that they had filed an action in the district court challenging title in Plaintiff. After the district court action had been dismissed as to Plaintiff, the county court overruled Defendants’ motion to dismiss, found in favor of Plaintiff, and ordered a writ of restitution to be issued. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Defendants failed to present to the county court evidence of a question of title until after that question had been resolved, the county court was not divested of jurisdiction. View "Fed. Nat’l Mortgage Ass’n v. Marcuzzo" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, and other crimes. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the district court erred when it overruled his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of the contents of a cell phone that was among the items of personal property taken from him upon his arrest. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences, holding (1) the district court did not err in not suppressing evidence obtained from the search of the cell phone because, while there was not a valid search warrant in this case, the issuance of the warrants was reasonable, and the warrants were carried out in good faith; (2) the district court did not err when it overruled Defendant’s other objections to the admission of evidence obtained from the search of the cell phone; and (3) there was no merit to Defendant’s remaining assignments of error. View "State v. Henderson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of sexual assault of a child. Defendant appealed, assigning as error that an alternate thirteenth juror deliberated and was polled in the guilty verdict against him. The original bill of exceptions reflected the thirteenth juror’s being polled. A reproofread version of the bill of exceptions that replaced the original bill of exceptions, however, reflected only twelve jurors polled for the verdict. The court of appeals remanded the matter to the district court for a hearing on the question of the accuracy of the bill of exceptions. The district court entered an order finding that the reproofread version of the bill of exceptions was the bill of exceptions upon which Defendant’s appeal should proceed. Defendant argued before the court of appeals that the bill of exceptions was not credible and that a new trial was warranted. The court of appeals affirmed, finding no merit to Defendant’s assignments of error. The Supreme Court affirmed on further review, holding that the district court did not plainly err in determining that the presently filed bill of exceptions was accurate. View "State v. Kays" on Justia Law

Connor was born out of wedlock to Blake and Amanda and given Amanda’s maiden surname. Amanda was granted sole legal and physical custody of Connor. Amanda subsequently married and changed her surname to that of her husband. Thereafter, both Amanda and Blake sought to change Connor’s surname - Blake proposing his surname and Amanda proposing her married surname. The district court entered an order changing Connor’s surname to Blake’s surname, giving preference to the paternal surname and using a “substantial evidence” standard. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court applied an incorrect burden of proof, as the child’s best interests is the controlling standard; (2) the district court wrongfully gave preference to the surname of Blake because no automatic preference as to the surname of a child born in wedlock exists in Nebraska law; and (3) the evidence was insufficient to show that a change to either Blake’s surname or Amanda’s married surname would promote his best interests. Remanded. View "State ex rel. Connor H." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of two counts of first degree murder and two related counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Defendant was sentenced to terms of life imprisonment for each of the murder convictions, to be served consecutively. Defendant appealed, raising allegations of error related to an evidentiary ruling, a jury instruction, prosecutorial misconduct, and assistance of trial counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in its evidentiary ruling; (2) Defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct were either without merit or Defendant was not prejudiced by the misconduct; and (3) Defendant’s ineffective assistance claims either failed or could not be addressed on direct appeal. View "State v. Dubray" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the surface owner of various tracts of land in Sioux County, sued the alleged owners of severed mineral interests in those tracts, claiming that the defendants abandoned their interests because they did not comply with the requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. 57-229 by failing to exercise publicly the right of ownership of the severed mineral interests. All of the defendants filed verified claims to the mineral interests prior to the action filed by Plaintiff. The district court concluded (1) the alleged mineral owners had either strictly complied or substantially complied with the requirements of section 57-229; and (2) the alleged mineral owners had not forfeited their mineral interests, except for one of the claims, which was terminated. Rice appealed, and two of the defendants cross-appealed as to the mineral interests that were terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) strict compliance with section 57-229 is mandatory; (2) several of the defendants abandoned their interests by not strictly complying with the statute, and therefore, the district court erred in failing to terminate their interests; and (3) the district court correctly terminated the remaining mineral interests. View "Rice v. Bixler" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of six felonies arising from a shooting involving multiple victims, including attempted first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony with respect to Kevin Guzman. The court of appeals reversed Defendant’s convictions as to Guzman and remanded for a new trial, concluding that the trial court erred in excluding Guzman’s testimony as to Guzman’s aggressive and violent character while using drugs and alcohol. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals erred in determining that Defendant’s self-defense claim was prejudiced by the exclusion of evidence of Guzman’s aggressive and violent behavior. Remanded with direction that the relevant convictions and sentences be reinstated. View "State v. Matthews" on Justia Law

Jack Irwin owed a warehouse that Shade rented to store personal property. West Gate Bank held notes payable from Shade that were secured by Shade’s personal property. Shade later defaulted on the notes. Irwin and West Gate subsequently agreed to move Shade’s personal property pursuant to an “Abandonment” document. When Shade filed for bankruptcy, the bankruptcy court approved distribution of the proceeds in Shade’s personal property to West Gate, concluding that the Abandonment document was not an assignment or release of West Gate’s perfected security interest. Thereafter, Irwin filed this action against West Bank in district court alleging that West Gate breached its obligations under the Abandonment document by failing to pay the proceeds to Irwin. The district curt entered judgment in favor of West Gate. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court’s determination regarding the preclusive effect of the bankruptcy court’s ruling with respect to an assignment or release of West Gate’s security interest in Shade’s property was not relevant to this appeal; and (2) the district court did not err in concluding that the Abandonment document was not an enforceable contract or a warranty.View "Irwin v. West Gate Bank" on Justia Law

RFD-TV, LLC, a television programming service, executed an affiliation agreement with Sunflower Broadband Corporation that granted Sunflower a nonexclusive right to distribute RFD programming to Sunflower’s subscribers in Kansas in exchange for a fee. Knology, Inc., subsequently purchased Sunflower’s assets. Prior to this purchase Knology was providing cable service to subscribers in South Dakota. Knology later became a wholly owned subsidiary of WOW! Cable. Two years later, Knology and WOW ceased distribution of RFD programming and did not pay fees. RFD sued Knology and WOW (collectively, Appellees) for breach of contract. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the district court did not have personal jurisdiction over them. The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding that the minimum contacts requirement between Appellees, as nonresident defendants, and the State had not been met. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding that the district court (1) did not err in dismissing the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction; and (2) erred in dismissing the case with prejudice. View "RFD-TV v. WildOpenFence Fin." on Justia Law