Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Thomas Latzel was a passenger in the vehicle of Daniel Vanekelenburg, who was driving, when the vehicle collided with another vehicle driven by Patrick Gaughen. The collision occurred at an unmarked intersection of two county roads. Brothers Ronald Bartek and Doug Bartek owned the land to the southwest corner of the intersection. Before Thomas died from his injuries, his wife filed a negligence action against the drivers involved in the collision and the Barteks, alleging that the Barteks were negligent by planting corn too close to the roadside and by allowing the corn to obstruct the view of the intersection. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Barteks, concluding that the negligence of the drivers constituted an intervening cause as a matter of law. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the actions of the drivers constituted an efficient intervening cause of the collision, which severed the causal connection between the conduct of the Barteks and the injuries received by Thomas.View "Latzel v. Bartek" on Justia Law

A guest (“Guest”) at an apartment complex fell of a third-story apartment’s balcony, rendering him quadriplegic. Guest sued the apartment complex’s ownership (“Owner”) and management (“Manager”) under theories of joint and several liability. American Family Mutual Insurance Company held liability policies covering both Owner and Manager. Regent Insurance Company held liability policies covering Manager, but the parties disputed whether the policies also covered the “same risk” for Owner as an additional insured. American Family settled with Guest and sued Regent for equitable contribution toward the payment it made to Guest under the settlement agreement. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of American Family. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in its apportionment of the common obligation toward Guest’s settlement.View "Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Regent Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants, including Lyle Sukup and Kristen Sukup, seeking payment for a boundary fence he built between his property and the property in which Defendants had an interest. Specifically, Defendant alleged that he had an agreement with the Sukups to build the fence between his property and the Sukups’ property and that the Sukups agreed to share equally in the cost. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that Plaintiff's cause of action arose under Nebraska's "fence law" and that the county courts had exclusive jurisdiction over fence contribution cases. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Plaintiff’s complaint was not simply an action for contribution but was also a common-law contract action that was subject to the district court’s jurisdiction. View "Kotrous v. Zerbe" on Justia Law

Husband filed a complaint seeking a divorce from Wife. Before trial, the parties negotiated a settlement, and Wife’s attorney drafted a decree. Wife, however, refused to sign the decree, and Husband filed a motion to compel. At a hearing on the motion to compel, the district court signed and entered a copy of the drafted decree, which had not been signed by either party. Wife subsequently filed a motion to vacate. The district court overruled the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Wife’s amended motion to vacate the judgment, as (1) although the decree was not signed by Wife, it was drafted by Wife’s attorney, and, at the motion to compel hearing, Wife presented no evidence that she had changed her mind about or disagreed with the settlement; and (2) Wife’s remaining assignment of error was waived. View "Kibler v. Kibler" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Defendants, the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC), the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, and several members of the UNMC’s staff, in their official and individual capacities, for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act, alleging that Defendants discriminated against him while he was a medical student at UNMC because of his chronic and recurrent depressive disorder disability. The district court dismissed the individual defendants in their individual capacities and granted summary judgment in favor of the remaining defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) granting summary judgment on Plaintiff’s ADA/Rehabilitation Act claims; (2) denying portions of Plaintiff’s motions to compel; and (3) failing to sua sponte schedule a hearing relating to Defendants’ alleged failure to comply with motions to compel that were granted.View "Doe v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Neb." on Justia Law

In 2009, a pickup truck and a school bus collided at a rural intersection that had limited visibility and was “blind” for both drivers. A stop sign facing the truck was missing at the intersection. Jeff Hall, the driver of the truck, filed an action against the County of Lancaster and Norris School District, the owner of the bus, alleging that the collision was proximately caused by the negligence of the County and of Ronny Aden, the driver of the bus. The district court determined that both drivers were negligent. The court also concluded that the County was liable, reasoning it would have discovered the sign was missing if it had conducted regular sign inspections. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment finding the County liable, holding that the district court was clearly wrong in determining that the County’s lack of a sign-inspection policy was a proximate cause of the accident. Remanded for reallocation of liability between Hall and Norris.View "Hall v. County of Lancaster" on Justia Law

The Commission on Judicial Qualifications charged Gregory Schatz, a district judge, with misconduct for improperly intervening in a case involving his friend by ordering him released from jail on Schatz’s own recognizance before arraignment. An appointed special master found that Schatz had violated several provisions of the judicial code and the Nebraska Constitution and recommended a public reprimand. The Commission adopted the special master’s factual findings and likewise recommended a public reprimand. Considering the nature of the misconduct and the presence of several mitigating circumstances, the Supreme Court agreed that a public reprimand was an appropriate sanction and publicly reprimanded Schatz.View "In re Complaint Against Schatz" on Justia Law

The City of Fremont paved on block of a street and assessed the paving costs against abutting property owners. The City relied on Nebraska’s “gap and extend” law, which permits a city to “pave any unpaved street…which intersects a paved street for a distance of not to exceed one block on either side of such paved street” to authorize the paving. Appellees, legal titleholders of property that abutted upon and was adjacent to the street, filed a petition on appeal, alleging that the levy of special assessments was invalid. The district court sustained Appellees’ motion for summary judgment, concluding that the City did not comport with the limitations and restrictions required by the gap and extend law. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the plan language of the statute authorized the paving. Remanded with direction to enter judgment in favor of the City.View "Johnson v. City of Fremont" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed two postconviction motions, both of which were denied. Appellant also filed for federal habeas relief, which the federal courts denied. This appeal concerned Appellant’s latest motion for postconviction relief, which contained five claims dealing with the method of inflicting the death penalty and the State’s authority to put Appellant to death at all, no matter the method. The district court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s motion failed to state a claim for postconviction relief, either because his claims were without legal basis or because they were not cognizable in postconviction.View "State v. Ryan" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, property owners, filed a quiet title action against owners of adjacent lots, seeking a declaration that express easements granted in favor of the adjacent lots were invalid. The defendants filed counterclaims asserting that the express easements were valid. Plaintiffs submitted to Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company ("Commonwealth") a claim for defense pursuant to a policy of title insurance issued by Commonwealth insuring Plaintiffs’ property, but Commonwealth denied the claim. In the quiet title action, the district court extinguished the express easements and denied the counterclaims but concluded that the defendants possessed implied easements. While the quiet title action was pending, Plaintiffs filed the instant action against Commonwealth, seeking a determination that Commonwealth breached its duty under the policy by refusing to provide a defense to the counterclaims. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Commonwealth. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in sustaining Commonwealth’s motion for summary judgment because Commonwealth did not violate its contract with Plaintiffs by denying coverage or indemnification.View "Woodle v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law