by
The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Appellant’s successive motion for postconviction relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing and without requiring a response from the State. The district court concluded that the motion (1) was time-barred under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-3001(4), (2) impermissibly sought to raise grounds for relief that either had been litigated in Appellant’s first postconviction motion or were available at the time of his first motion, and (3) was frivolous. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) denying Appellant’s successive motion for postconviction relief without notice and hearing, (2) denying Appellant’s motion to alter or amend the judgment and denying his motion to amend the successive postconviction motion, and (3) denying Appellant’s motion for appointment of postconviction counsel. View "State v. Amaya" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law

by
The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal from the district court’s order that denied his request to modify his probation order. In 2015, Appellant was convicted of proximately causing serious bodily injury to another while driving under the influence of alcohol. The district court placed Appellant on probation for a period of sixty months. In 2016, Appellant filed a motion to modify or clarify the probation order. The court concluded that it lacked authority to modify the terms of Appellant’s probation and overruled the motion. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Appellant’s untimely challenge to its sentencing order through a motion to modify or clarify the probation order. View "State v. Irish" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions of four counts of first degree sexual assault of a child and one count of child abuse and the sentences imposed in connection with the convictions. Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for a mandatory minimum term of fifteen years and a maximum term of twenty years for each of the four sexual assault convictions, two of which were ordered to be served consecutively. The court held (1) Defendant failed to properly preserve his facial challenge to the statutory classification scheme under Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-319.01; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by ordering two of the mandatory minimum sentences to run consecutively. View "State v. Stone" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to county deputy sheriff James Roark in this action brought by Marilyn Walton pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. In her complaint, Walton alleged a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights when Roark entered Waldron’s home to serve a warrant on Waldron’s grandson. Specifically, Waldron alleged that Roark violated the knock-and-announce rule and that her arrest was unlawful. The district court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of Roark on the basis that he was entitled to qualified immunity. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Waldron did not meet her burden of showing that Roark violated a clearly established right in any of Waldron’s claims. View "Waldron v. Roark" on Justia Law

by
In this divorce case, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals, which affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s judgment, and remanded the cause with directions to affirm the decree entered by the trial court. The Supreme Court held that the court of appeals erred in (1) determining that the entirety of the proceeds from a personal injury settlement should be included in the marital estate; (2) remanding the matter to the district court for recalculation of the value of the marital estate and redistribution of the assets and debts; and (3) remanding the matter for recalculation of Husband’s child support obligation. View "Marshall v. Marshall" on Justia Law

Posted in: Family Law

by
At issue was whether the district court properly dismissed the petition brought by Frenchman-Cambridge Irrigation District (FCID) challenging certain integrated management plans (IMPs). The district court found that there was subject matter jurisdiction but dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Supreme Court vacated the order of the district court for lack of jurisdiction, holding (1) FCID lacked standing to challenge the IMPs because it failed to show that the IMPs caused an injury-in-fact; and (2 )because FCID failed to establish standing, the district court lacked jurisdiction over the case. View "Frenchman-Cambridge Irrigation District v. Department of Natural Resources" on Justia Law

Posted in: Environmental Law

by
A court can consider an exception to the State’s waiver of immunity for tort claims under the State Tort Claims Act (STCA) sua sponte and for the first time on appeal. In so holding, the Supreme Court overruled Nebraska cases holding that an STCA exception is an affirmative defense that the State must plead and prove. Here, Defendant appealed the district court’s order dismissing his negligence claim under the STCA and his due process and Eighth Amendment claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court dismissed Defendant’s claims against Defendants - state officials and employees of the Nebraska Board of Parole and the Department of Correctional Services - concluding that all of Defendant’s claims were barred by sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, or pleading deficiencies. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the STCA exception for claims of false imprisonment applied, which exception barred Defendant’s tort claim under the doctrine of sovereign immunity; and (2) the district court did not err in ruling that Defendants were shielded from Defendant’s section 1983 action by absolute or qualified immunity. View "Davis v. State" on Justia Law

Posted in: Personal Injury

by
The Supreme Court vacated the order of the district court vacating the order of the Nebraska Liquor Control Commission, which denied four beer retailers’ applications to renew their liquor licenses. The retailers were located in an unincorporated border town just across the state line from the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation where the sale and consumption of alcohol were prohibited. Without addressing the merits of the parties’ respective positions, the Supreme Court vacated the district court’s order, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the retailers’ petition for review because the retailers did not comply with the requirements for judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act. View "Kozal v. Nebraska Liquor Control Commission" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s admission of evidence obtained during a search of Defendant’s room. The district court overruled Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from Defendant's bedroom following his consent to a search. The court found that the search warrant for the common areas of a house and a roommate’s bedroom was invalid but that Defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his bedroom and that the search was sufficiently attenuated from the invalid warrant. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the district court correctly determined that Defendant’s consent was voluntary and that it was not obtained by exploitation of the prior illegality of the search warrant. View "State v. Bray" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court reversed the holding of the Court of Appeals reversing the decision of the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court finding that Employee’s work-related injury was fully resolved within three days of the work accident and that Employee’s need for additional medical treatment was the result of a non-work-related injury. The Supreme Court held (1) there was sufficient competent evidence to support the Workers’ Compensation Court’s determination that Employee’s work-related injury was fully resolved prior to his subsequent fall; and (2) the Workers’ Compensation Court was not clearly wrong in finding that Employee did not meet his burden of proving that his subsequent injury was the result of his workplace accident. View "Hintz v. Farmers Cooperative Ass’n" on Justia Law