Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant was charged with the unlawful sale or purchase of a motor vehicle by acting as a motor vehicle dealer, auction dealer, motor vehicle salesperson, or dealer’s agent without the required license. After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted. The Supreme Court remanded the case for a new trial due to improper admission of expert testimony. After a second jury trial, Appellant was again convicted. On appeal, Appellant argued that the jury instructions misstated the definition of motor vehicle dealer. The Supreme Court agreed with Appellant and again reversed, holding (1) in order to qualify as a motor vehicle dealer, a person must be actively and regularly engaged in one of the statutory enumerated acts; and (2) the instructions given at Merchant’s second trial omitted this requirement from the elements of the offense. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Merchant" on Justia Law

In December 2008, Appellee was performing his duties as an outdoor parking lot attendant when he developed frostbite. Appellee’s employer and its insurance company (Appellants) voluntarily paid for the medical treatment of Appellee’s frostbite injury and paid temporary total disability benefits through mid-2009. In September 2012, a partial amputation of the fifth metatarsal in Appellee’s right foot was performed. In January 2013, Appellee sought additional benefits for his work-related injury. The Workers’ Compensation Court awarded benefits. On appeal, Appellants argued that the Workers’ Compensation Court erred in finding that Appellee’s claim was not barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the partial amputation of Appellee’s foot was a material change in condition and substantial increase in disability that would permit Appellee to seek benefits more than two years after Appellants’ last voluntary payment. View "Lenz v. Cent. Parking Sys. of Neb., Inc." on Justia Law

After Kim Abbott, a beneficiary of her grandfather’s trust, learned that the trust had become “non-economical,” she filed a complaint against the trustees, alleging that the trustees had breached their fiduciary duties to maintain trust records, to properly inform and report to the beneficiaries, and to administer the trust in good faith. The county court dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the trustees had breached their duty to inform and report but the breach was harmless. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the Court of Appeals (1) did not err in ultimately concluding that the trustees’ breach of their duty was harmless; but (2) erred in concluding that the annual schedule K-1 tax reports were sufficient to reasonably inform beneficiaries of the trust and its administration. Remanded. View "In re Rolf H. Brennemann Testamentary Trust " on Justia Law

In 1976, a family farming partnership was formed among Glenn Elting and his two sons, Kerwin and Perry. The partners comprising the partnership changed over the years, but the management of the partnership remained with Glenn, Kerwin, and Perry. In 2008 and 2009, Kerwin entered into a series of grain contracts on behalf of the partnership that resulted in significant losses to the partnership. In 2013, Perry and his son and wife (Appellees) filed an amended complaint against Kerwin (Appellant) alleging that Kerwin had entered into a series of grain contracts on behalf of the partnership without the authority to do so, resulting in significant losses to the partnership. The district court awarded judgment and damages to Appellees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court was not clearly wrong in determining that Kerwin was not authorized to enter into the contracts on behalf of the partnership and that his actions were not ratified; and (2) Kerwin was not shielded from liability by the limitation of liability clause contained in the controlling partnership agreement. View "Elting v. Elting" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded no contest to two counts of burglary and was found to be a habitual criminal. The district court sentenced Defendant to a term of ten to ten years’ imprisonment for each burglary conviction. The district court ordered the sentences to be served consecutively. Defendant appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and in part remanded for a determination of whether the sentences were to be served concurrently or consecutively, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant to a term of ten to ten years’ imprisonment for each conviction; but (2) erroneously concluded that it was required to impose consecutive sentences on the two burglary convictions that were enhanced by the habitual criminal statute. View "State v. Berney" on Justia Law

Ralph Greb died in 2010. At issue in this case was the distribution of Ralph’s estate in kind to two beneficiaries, his son, Richard, and his daughter, Nanette. The county court overruled Richard’s and Nanette’s objections and approved the proposed distribution of the estate. Nanette appealed and Richard cross-appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the county court’s order of distribution, holding (1) two multiple-party bank accounts were correctly excluded from the probate estate because Nanette failed to meet her burden of proving a lack of survivorship rights; (2) because a corporation dissolved by the state for failure to pay taxes continued as a de facto corporation, Ralph’s gifts of corporate stock during his lifetime were not part of his probate estate; and (3) because Nanette was not obligated to pay indebtedness owed to the estate by her spouse, the county court did not err in ordering distribution of the asset in kind to both Richard and Nanette. View "In re Estate of Greb" on Justia Law

Kerford Limestone Co. purchased a motor grader for use in its manufacturing business and claimed an exemption from sales and use tax on the purchase. The State Tax Commissioner concluded that Kerford had failed to prove the motor grader was exempt manufacturing machinery and equipment. The district court (1) reversed the Commissioner’s determination that to qualify for an exemption, Kerford was required to show that the motor grader was used in manufacturing at least fifty percent of the time; (2) affirmed the Commissioner’s determination that Kerford’s use of the motor grader to maintain “haul roads” was not an exempt use; and (3) remanded for a determination of whether use of the motor grader to maintain inventory stockpile areas qualified Kerford for an exemption. The Supreme Court reversed the portion of the district court’s order that remanded the cause for further proceedings, holding (1) Kerford’s use of the motor grader to maintain inventory stockpile areas was a use in manufacturing; and (2) therefore, Kerford was entitled to an exemption from sales and use tax on its purchase of the motor grader. Remanded to the district court with direction to enter an order granting Kerford the exemption. View "Kerford Limestone Co. v. Neb. Dep't of Revenue" on Justia Law

Appellant filed this action against Prairie Fields Family Medicine, P.C., bringing claims of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy and alleging that a Prairie Fields employee disclosed her positive HIV test results to a third party, and as a result, the information spread throughout the community where Appellant did business and had friends. The district court (1) dismissed Appellant’s invasion of privacy claim, concluding that it was time barred; and (2) granted summary judgment for Prairie Fields on Appellant’s claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, concluding that Appellant failed to create an issue of fact that someone from Prairie Fields had disclosed her diagnosis to a third party. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s summary judgment order, holding that Appellant raised a genuine issue of material fact that someone at Prairie Fields disclosed information from her private medical records. Remanded. View "C.E. v. Prairie Fields Family Med., P.C." on Justia Law

Orfa Torres applied for a domestic abuse protection order against her boyfriend, Benjamin Morales. The district court issued an order to show case. After a hearing, the district court vacated its order to show cause, dismissed the case, and required Torres to pay the costs of the action. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the order dismissing the cause, holding that the district court did not err in failing to issue the protection order because Torres did not provide some evidence of abuse as defined under Neb. Rev. Stat. 42-903(1); and (2) reversed the portion of the order requiring Torres to pay costs, holding that because the facts in Torres’s affidavit were not false and the order was not sought in bad faith, the district court erred in taxing costs to Torres. View "Torres v. Morales" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a felon. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences on appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a motion for postconviction relief, making numerous claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it concluded that Appellant’s claims were without merit and denied his motion for postconviction relief. View "State v. Robinson" on Justia Law