Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The appellant, Dilang N. Dat, was convicted of assault by a confined person following an altercation with another inmate, Tilian Tilian, in the Hall County jail. Dat punched Tilian multiple times, causing him to fall to the ground. The incident was captured on surveillance video, and a corrections officer testified about the altercation and its aftermath. Dat was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with 228 days' credit for time served, followed by nine months of post-release supervision.The district court overruled Dat's motion for self-representation, finding his waiver of counsel was not voluntary as he stated it was made "in duress." The court also quashed a subpoena for a witness, Darla Sparr, because it was served less than two days before she was ordered to appear, and Dat failed to show good cause to shorten the statutory period for service. Dat's counsel argued that Sparr's testimony was necessary to challenge the evidence of bodily injury, but the court found no valid reason for the late subpoena.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that physical manifestation of an injury is not required to meet the definition of bodily injury under Nebraska law. The evidence, including the video and testimony, was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find that Dat caused bodily injury to Tilian. The court also found no abuse of discretion in quashing the subpoena for untimely service and concluded that Dat's trial counsel was not ineffective, as there was no reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different had the subpoena been timely served. The court did not find plain error in the sentencing credit calculation due to the lack of a clear record on the issue. View "State v. Dat" on Justia Law

The case involves the administration of the Charles and Patricia Masek Family Trust. Barry Masek, a contingent beneficiary and successor cotrustee, alleged that his siblings, Mark Masek and Dianne Yahiro, also contingent beneficiaries and successor cotrustees, breached the trust. Barry claimed that Mark and Dianne blocked access to their mother, Patricia Masek, the settlor, beneficiary, and trustee, and misused trust assets for their benefit. Patricia later died, and the county court entered a money judgment against Mark and Dianne in favor of Barry and overruled their motion for a new trial.Mark and Dianne appealed the denial of their motion for a new trial. The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the county court's decision because it did not state the legal basis for finding Mark and Dianne liable for breach of trust. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine their liability either as de facto trustees or by participating in a breach of trust committed by Patricia.On remand, the county court received additional evidence and determined that Mark and Dianne were liable to the trust by participating in or inducing Patricia to commit breaches of trust while she was in their care. The court issued a judgment against Mark and Dianne for $1,276,858, which included various expenditures from the trust assets. Mark and Dianne appealed again, and Barry cross-appealed.The Nebraska Supreme Court found that competent evidence supported the county court's findings for some, but not all, of the disputed expenditures. The court modified the judgment to $619,000, affirming it in favor of Barry in his capacity as cotrustee of the Charles and Patricia Masek Family Trust. The court also upheld the award of additional attorney fees to Barry. View "In re Masek Family Trust" on Justia Law

The case involves Benjamin D. Rieker, a Lincoln Police Department officer, who was working off-duty as a security guard at a hospital. On October 31, 2020, Jan Noch, a patient, became disruptive and was asked to leave the hospital. Rieker encountered Noch in a hallway and instructed him to leave through the ambulance bay exit, but Noch insisted on leaving through the main lobby. Rieker claimed Noch threatened him and made aggressive movements, prompting Rieker to push Noch, causing him to fall. Security footage and eyewitnesses provided conflicting accounts of the incident.The county court for Lancaster County convicted Rieker of third-degree assault and false reporting after a bench trial. Rieker was sentenced to 18 months’ probation for each conviction, to be served concurrently. Rieker appealed to the district court, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that his motion to suppress certain statements should have been granted. The district court affirmed the convictions and sentences.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. The court found that the evidence, including security footage and eyewitness testimony, supported the conclusion that Rieker’s use of force was not justified under the defense of property statute. The court also found that Rieker knowingly provided false information in his reports and during an interview with law enforcement, intending to impede the investigation of an actual criminal matter.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed Rieker’s convictions and sentences, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support both the assault and false reporting convictions. The court did not find it necessary to address the suppression issue, as any potential error in admitting the ACI form was deemed harmless given the other competent evidence supporting the convictions. View "State v. Rieker" on Justia Law

Anthony J. Garcia was convicted of four counts of first-degree murder, among other charges, for crimes committed in Omaha, Nebraska, in 2008 and 2013. In October 2016, a jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to death in 2018. Garcia's convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. While his direct appeal was pending, Garcia filed a motion for a new trial, claiming newly discovered evidence suggested he was not competent during earlier proceedings.The District Court for Douglas County denied Garcia's motion for a new trial. The court found that the evidence Garcia presented, which included his positive response to involuntary medication in 2019 and a diagnosis of hearing loss in 2020, did not qualify as newly discovered evidence because it did not exist at the time of his trial or mitigation hearing. Additionally, the court found the motion was untimely, as it was filed three years after Garcia's counsel obtained the relevant records, without any explanation for the delay.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Garcia's motion and supporting documents failed to identify evidence so substantial that it would probably result in a different verdict if a new trial were granted. The court also found that Garcia's claims regarding his competency and ability to contribute to his defense did not warrant a new trial, as the evidence did not suggest he was incompetent during the original proceedings. Furthermore, the court concluded that Garcia could not establish ineffective assistance of counsel, as he could not show that any deficient performance by his counsel prejudiced his defense. View "State v. Garcia" on Justia Law

The case involves a father appealing a district court's order modifying parenting time under a dissolution decree, which included granting the mother sole discretion over all parenting time with their two teenage daughters. The father also appeals the denial of his pro se motion for a new trial, alleging he lacked notice of the modification hearing. The father did not appear at the hearing, but an attorney from the same firm as his attorney of record did appear, cross-examined the mother, and made arguments. The court noted in its modification order that the father was represented by his attorney at the hearing.The district court had previously dissolved the marriage, awarding the mother sole physical custody and both parents joint legal custody of their four children. The father filed a motion for an order to show cause, alleging the mother violated the decree by denying him parenting time and disparaging him to the children. He also filed a complaint for modification, seeking to reduce his child support obligations. The mother counterclaimed, seeking modifications to the custody arrangement and child support.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the father's motion for a new trial. The court held that notice to the father's attorney constituted notice to the father, satisfying procedural due process requirements. The court also found that there was a material change in circumstances warranting modification of the parenting plan, including poor communication between the parents and the father's failure to exercise visitation rights.However, the Supreme Court held that the district court's order unlawfully delegated judicial authority to the mother by giving her sole discretion over the father's parenting time with the daughters. The court reversed this part of the order and remanded the case with directions to formulate a reasonable visitation plan in the best interests of the daughters. The court affirmed the remainder of the district court's order, including modifications to the father's parenting time with the other two children and the clarification of legal custody. View "Sulzle v. Sulzle" on Justia Law

Courtney Galloway, a used car sales manager at Husker Auto Group, LLC, was terminated from her position in January 2019. Galloway claimed her termination was in retaliation for investigating and reporting a fraudulent sales scheme involving a fellow employee, Ryan Mathis. She alleged that the scheme involved selling vehicles to straw purchasers to evade state sales tax and Mercedes-Benz export policies, and that upper management was aware of and benefited from the scheme.Galloway filed a claim with the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission (NEOC), alleging whistleblower retaliation under the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act (NFEPA). The NEOC dismissed her claim, concluding that she had not engaged in protected activity because she reported a coworker’s actions, not those of her employer. The NEOC also found no evidence that the individual who terminated her employment was aware of her protected activity.Galloway then filed a lawsuit in the district court for Lancaster County, Nebraska, asserting claims of retaliation under the NFEPA and wrongful discharge under Nebraska’s public policy exception to the at-will employment rule. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Husker Auto, agreeing with the NEOC’s findings.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo. The court found that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Husker Auto was involved in or knew of the fraudulent scheme and whether the company knew of Galloway’s role in investigating the scheme. The court noted conflicting testimony and evidence about Husker Auto’s knowledge and involvement, as well as Galloway’s performance and the reasons for her termination. Consequently, the court reversed the district court’s summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Galloway v. Husker Auto Group" on Justia Law

The case involves Ryan D. Rivera-Meister, who was charged with attempted intentional child abuse resulting in death after the 16-month-old child of his girlfriend was fatally injured while in his care. Rivera-Meister initially claimed the child fell from a bunk bed, but medical evidence suggested the injuries were inconsistent with such a fall. He was charged in 2017, fled to Guatemala, and was extradited back to Nebraska in 2022. He pleaded no contest to the amended charge and was sentenced to 40 to 50 years in prison.The Hall County District Court sentenced Rivera-Meister and credited him with 706 days for time served in Nebraska but denied his request for an additional 266 days for time spent in custody in Guatemala awaiting extradition. The court reasoned that his decision to flee and not return voluntarily justified denying the additional credit.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and agreed with Rivera-Meister and the State that he was entitled to the additional 266 days of credit for time served in Guatemala. The court held that under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 83-1,106(1), an offender is entitled to credit for time spent in custody as a result of the charge for which the prison sentence is imposed, regardless of whether that custody was in another state or country. The court modified the sentence to include the additional 266 days, totaling 972 days of credit for time served. The court found no abuse of discretion in the length of the sentence imposed and affirmed the sentence as modified. View "State v. Rivera-Meister" on Justia Law

Kevin T. Kilmer was charged with first-degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony after allegedly killing Ruth Ann Wittmuss with an ax. Kilmer had been staying with Wittmuss and Michael Malone in a trailer house in Kilgore, Nebraska. On the night of the murder, Kilmer arrived at a friend's house covered in blood and admitted to hitting Wittmuss with an ax. Law enforcement found Wittmuss' body in a suitcase on the side of a road, and an autopsy confirmed she died from blunt force trauma to the head. Evidence collected from the crime scene, including blood and DNA, linked Kilmer to the murder.The Cherry County District Court jury found Kilmer guilty of both charges. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder and an additional 10 to 14 years for the use of a deadly weapon, with the sentences to be served consecutively. Kilmer appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove he acted with deliberate and premeditated malice.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that intent and premeditation can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, including the defendant's actions and the circumstances surrounding the incident. The court found that the evidence, including Kilmer's motive, the nature of Wittmuss' injuries, and Kilmer's actions before and after the murder, supported the jury's finding of deliberate and premeditated malice.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed Kilmer's convictions and sentences, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. View "State v. Kilmer" on Justia Law

Jennings Plant Services, LLC, and its members, Spencer and Tarin Jennings, filed a lawsuit against Ellerbrock-Norris Agency, Inc., and Elliot Bassett, alleging that Ellerbrock-Norris failed to provide competent insurance advice. Specifically, Jennings claimed that Ellerbrock-Norris advised them not to add a company-owned vehicle, a Ford F-150, to their commercial insurance policies, which led to a lack of coverage when the vehicle was involved in a fatal collision. This resulted in a significant judgment against Jennings in a federal wrongful death case brought by Kacey Kimbrough, the special administrator of the estate of Shawn Thomas Kimbrough.In the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, Kimbrough obtained a judgment of $5,436,266.87 against Jennings Plant Services. As part of a partial settlement, Jennings assigned Kimbrough a right to 85% of any proceeds from their state lawsuit against Ellerbrock-Norris. Kimbrough then sought to intervene in the state lawsuit under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-328, claiming an interest in the litigation due to her assigned right to a portion of the proceeds.The District Court for Washington County denied Kimbrough's motion to intervene, finding that she had no direct cause of action against either Jennings or Ellerbrock-Norris and no legal interest in the subject matter of the underlying litigation. The court determined that Kimbrough's interest was indirect and insufficient to warrant intervention under § 25-328.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Kimbrough's alleged interest in the proceeds of the lawsuit was too attenuated to constitute a direct and legal interest in the litigation. The court concluded that Kimbrough, as a mere creditor with an indirect interest, did not meet the statutory requirements for intervention. View "Jennings Plant Services, LLC v. Ellerbrock-Norris Agency" on Justia Law

A landowner, Main St Properties LLC (MSP), entered into a conditional zoning agreement with the City of Bellevue, Nebraska, in 2012. The agreement allowed the City to rezone MSP’s property if MSP violated the agreement by parking U-Haul vehicles north of the building. The City issued multiple violation notices to MSP over the years, citing breaches of the agreement.MSP did not appeal the first three violation notices but did appeal a fourth notice issued in June 2020. While this appeal was pending, the City rezoned MSP’s property back to its original classification, citing the multiple violations as the basis for this action.MSP filed two lawsuits against the City: one seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and the other challenging the rezoning through a petition in error. The district court granted summary judgment for the City in both cases, finding that the City acted within its rights under the agreement and that the rezoning was not arbitrary or unreasonable.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. It determined that the City’s action to rezone the property was legislative, not judicial, and thus not subject to a petition in error. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal related to the petition in error and vacated that judgment. However, the court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in the declaratory and injunctive relief case, holding that the City properly exercised its rights under the agreement after MSP committed multiple violations. The court also found that the stay provision in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 19-909 did not apply to the City’s legislative action and that there were no genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment. View "Main St Properties v. City of Bellevue" on Justia Law