Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After Decedent died in 2012, Ryan Gray was appointed as personal representative of Decedent’s estate. The final value of the estate was more than $5 million. When filing a petition for formal probate of the will, Gray submitted a request for a personal representative fee in the amount of two and a half percent of the estate. Five heirs of the estate objected to the request as excessive and unwarranted. The county court determined that Gray was entitled to a fee of $25,000 and overruled Gray’s motion to reconsider the fee. The Supreme Court affirmed the award of a personal representative fee of $25,000, holding that the award was neither contrary to the law nor arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.View "In re Estate of Gsantner" on Justia Law

For the tax year 2011, the county assessor decided to assess property taxes on parcel of land owned by Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District (Central) but leased to private parties. Central protested the tax assessment, and the Board of Equalization recommended not taxing the land. The Tax Equalization and Review Commission (TERC) affirmed, concluding that the parcels should not be taxed because Central had already made a payment in lieu of tax pursuant to Neb. Const. art. VIII, 11 for the relevant tax year. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed TERC’s finding that Central was not subject to property taxes for tax year 2011 because it had already made a payment in lieu of tax for that year; but (2) vacated the portion of TERC’s order that could be interpreted to mean that a lessee’s property tax obligation is included in Central’s payment in lieu of tax, as the issue of a lessee’s liability was not before TERC. View "Conroy v. Keith County Bd. of Equalization" on Justia Law

Mother and Father had a son while they were married. Mother filed for divorce, and a decree and parenting plan awarded sole primary and legal custody to Mother. Father was awarded visitation and ordered to pay $500 per month in child support. Father later filed a second amended application for modification, alleging a material change in circumstances for various reasons, including his unemployment and his relocation to Kansas. Following a trial, the district court found a material change in circumstances, made changes to the parties’ parenting time, and reduced Father’s child support obligation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) its order regarding visitation transportation; (2) reducing and in calculating Father’s child support obligation; and (3) awarding Mother attorney fees.View "Garza v. Garza" on Justia Law

Appellant, an over-the-road truck driver, filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits, alleging that he sustained injuries in the form of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in an accident that occurred during the course and scope of his employment. The compensation court applied a split test of causation used in heart attack cases, which requires proof of both legal and medical causation. The court then dismissed Appellant’s claim for failure to establish the medical cause prong. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Appellant’s claim, holding (1) the split test was properly applied to Appellant’s injuries in this case, as deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism present the same difficulties in attributing the cause of a heart attack to a claimant’s work and are similar in origin to a heart attack; and (2) the compensation court’s finding as to causation was not clearly wrong.View "Wingfield v. Hill Bros. Transp., Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of fourth-offense driving under the influence (DUI) and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two to three years. In addition, Defendant’s driver’s license was revoked for fifteen years. Defendant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress for lack of probable cause to arrest because his vehicle was on public property not open to public access at all relevant times. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence, holding (1) the district court did not err in overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress because the arresting officer was justified in approaching the vehicle after observing the driver exit the vehicle and urinate on a tree, which was an unlawful act; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; (3) the district court did not err in ruling that two prior convictions could be used for sentence enhancement; (4) the district court did not err in modifying its prior finding to reflect that Defendant had three prior DUI convictions instead of two; and (5) the district court did not impose an excessive sentence.View "State v. Matit" on Justia Law

After B.M. was born in 1994, Brian F. signed an acknowledgement of paternity stating that he was the biological father of B.M. In 1996, a decree of paternity established Brian F. as the legal father of the child and ordered him to pay child support. More than a dozen years later, Brian sought to reduce or terminate his child support obligation. During the course of the modification proceedings, genetic testing results revealed that Brian was not B.M.’s biological father. Based on the results of the genetic testing, the district court converted the action to modify child support to a disestablishment action and terminated Brian’s child support obligation. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in treating this modification of child support proceeding as a successful challenge to the acknowledgment, setting aside the finding of paternity, and terminating Brian’s child support obligation. Remanded.View "State ex rel. B.M. v. Brian F." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) with refusal of a chemical test and driving during revocation. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the State to reopen its case after it rested; (3) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s convictions; (4) the district court did not err in finding that Defendant’s out-of-state convictions were valid prior convictions for purposes of sentencing enhancement; (5) the district court did not err in modifying its prior finding to reflect that Defendant had three prior DUI convictions instead of two; and (6) the sentences imposed by the district court were within the statutory limits.View "State v. Bol" on Justia Law

Ryan Zimmerman drove onto ConAgra Foods, Inc.’s Omaha campus and fired a gun five times at window washers working on ConAgra property. ConAgra filed a complaint seeking a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and a permanent injunction enjoining Zimmerman from having any contact with ConAgra. The district court entered a temporary restraining order. After a hearing, the court dissolved the temporary injunction and denied ConAgra’s request for a permanent injunction, concluding that a single trespass does not give rise to injunctive relief. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded with directions to enter a one-year permanent injunction against Zimmerman, holding that, because the uncontroverted facts demonstrated that Zimmerman would trespass in the future in flagrant violation of criminal law upon ConAgra’s property, justice required a permanent injunction. View "ConAgra Foods, Inc. v. Zimmerman" on Justia Law

In 2009, Appellant suffered injuries to both of his knees in a work-related accident. Appellant filed a request for loss of earning compensation. The Workers’ Compensation Court concluded that, notwithstanding findings of permanent impairment, because no permanent physical restrictions were specifically assigned by an expert for Appellant’s left knee, the court could not perform a loss of earning capacity calculation authorized under the third paragraph of Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-121(3) and that Appellant was thus limited to scheduled member compensation. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the compensation court erred as a matter of law in concluding that there must be expert opinion of permanent physical restrictions as to each injured member in order to perform a loss of earning capacity calculation under section 48-121(3). Remanded.View "Rodgers v. Neb. State Fair" on Justia Law

Through its power of eminent domain, the State of Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR) took real property owned by Leo and Joanna Hike for a highway project. The parties were unable to agree on compensation, and the case proceeded to trial for a determination of damages. The principal issue disputed at trial was the fair market value of the Hikes’ property immediately prior to the taking, which depended on whether the property’s highest and best use at the time was residential or commercial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Hikes for $53,209, which suggested that the jury agreed with NDOR that the property must be valued as residential property. The Supreme Court affirmed the jury verdict, holding (1) the district court did not commit prejudicial error with respect to the evidentiary issues raised by the Hikes; (2) the district court did not err in instructing the jury; and (3) the prosecutor made an improper comment during closing argument, but the comment did not prevent a fair verdict. View "Hike v. State" on Justia Law