Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant pled no contest to one count of burglary and was sentenced to six to eight years’ imprisonment. Defendant argued that he was entitled to credit for time served of 197 days - four for the current charge and 193 for the time he was incarcerated pending his trial for previous charges of which he was acquitted. The district court gave Defendant credit only for time served of four days. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) Defendant was entitled to credit for time served for the 193 days he spent in custody prior to his acquittal in his prior criminal case; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant to six to eight years’ imprisonment.View "State v. Carngbe" on Justia Law

Appellant, an inmate incarcerated at the Tecumseh State Correctional Institution (TSCI), filed a petition for declaratory judgment alleging that TSCI operational memorandums that generally limited an inmate’s access to the law library to one hour per day violated his right to access the courts. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees, finding that Appellant did not show an actual injury caused by the library time regulations. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no material factual dispute that the law library regulations did not hinder a nonfrivolous and arguably meritorious legal claim regarding Appellant’s sentences or conditions of confinement. View "Payne v. Neb. Dep’t of Corr. Servs." on Justia Law

In 2009, Bonnie Nichols and Margie Nichols were married in Iowa. In 2012, Bonnie filed a complaint in a Nebraska court to dissolve the union. Margie filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that a Nebraska court lacked jurisdiction to dissolve a same-sex marriage. The district court granted Margie’s motion to dismiss for subject matter jurisdiction. The district court’s order purported to dismiss Bonnie’s complaint if Bonnie failed to amend it within fifteen days. Bonnie did not file an amended complaint, and the district court did not enter a judgment dismissing the action. Bonnie appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Bonnie appealed from a conditional order and not a final judgment, and therefore, the Court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal.View "Nichols v. Nichols" on Justia Law

Martin Linscott, Rolf Shasteen and Tony Brock formed the law firm Shasteen, Linscott & Brock (SLB). Linscott drafted a proposed shareholder agreement contemplating that if a shareholder left the firm, he would receive one-third of all fees from existing in-process cases. After Linscott left the firm, Linscott brought suit individually and derivatively on behalf of SLB against Shasteen and Brock seeking to recover one-third of attorney fees recovered from the SLB cases that existed at the time he withdrew as a shareholder. The district court ultimately concluded (1) the agreement was unenforceable under the statute of frauds; (2) the “unfinished business rule” had no application to this case; and (3) therefore, Linscott was not owed any attorney fees. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in (1) determining that the absence of any definition of the term “net fees” prevented the formation of an implied in fact contract; and (2) determining that the statute of frauds rendered any implied contract void. Remanded. View "Linscott v. Shasteen" on Justia Law

The State filed an information charging several counts against Defendant. Defendant was subsequently granted an indefinite continuance. The State then filed an amended information against Defendant, charging him with additional crimes. Defendant later filed a motion for absolute discharge, contending that he was not brought to trial before the running of the time for trial. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court’s denial of the motion for discharge did not violate Defendant’s statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial or Defendant’s right to due process because Defendant’s indefinite motion for a continuance was not automatically extinguished by the State’s amended information, and thus Defendant was not relieved of his duty to give notice of a request for trial in order to end the continuance and its accompanying statutory waiver of the right to a speedy trial.View "State v. Hettle" on Justia Law

After mother remarried, she petitioned for the termination of Father’s parental rights to the parties’ minor child. The county court entered an order terminating Father’s parental rights, concluding that termination was in the child’s best interests and that one of more of the grounds in Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-292 existed in support of termination. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err by (1) not addressing the county court’s failure to appoint a guardian ad litem for Father; and (2) finding the evidence sufficient to terminate Father’s parental rights under section 43-292.View "Wayne G. v. Jacqueline W." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sued Madison County under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act, alleging that the County was negligent for failing to maintain a vacated county road, causing injuries to some of Plaintiffs. The district court entered judgment against the County, concluding that the County breached its duty to maintain the vacated road. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial. On remand, the district court entered judgment in favor of the County, determining that the County retained its sovereign immunity because Plaintiffs’ claims fell within exemptions to the Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the County retained sovereign immunity with respect to its discretionary functions and therefore could not be held legally liable for its inaction. View "Blaser v. County of Madison" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a weapon by a prohibited person. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in overruling his motion to suppress his confession and admitting it into evidence at trial because his confession was the product of threats, coercion, and inducements of leniency made by police officers. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences, holding (1) police officers misrepresented to Defendant that felony murder would receive a lesser sentence than premeditated murder, but the misinformation did not overcome Defendant’s will and cause him to confess; and (2) therefore, the confession was voluntary and properly admitted at trial.View "State v. Turner" on Justia Law

Appellant was charged with driving under the influence and with failing to yield the right-of-way. Appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result an alleged seizure that he asserted was in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The county court overruled the motion, concluding that there was no seizure in this case. After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted as charged. On appeal, the district court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it affirmed the county court’s order overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress, as, under the facts of this case, Appellant was not seized for Fourth Amendment purposes.View "State v. Avey" on Justia Law

Mother and Father were the biological parents of Son and had joint legal custody of Son. Since his birth, Son lived primarily with Mother. In 2001, Mother married Stepfather. In 2013, Father filed a complaint to modify, seeking sole custody of Son. In his complaint, Father alleged there had been a material change in circumstance because Stepfather had been deported to Mexico and Mother wished to join him in Mexico with Son. Mother filed a countercomplaint seeking to permanently remove Son to Mexico. The district court granted summary judgment for Father on Mother’s countercomplaint, finding that Mother’s reason for removal was not legitimate. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in determining that Mother’s desire to live with Stepfather in Mexico was not a legitimate reason for removal as a matter of law. Remanded.View "Daniels v. Maldonado-Morin" on Justia Law