Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

While employed as a nurse, Appellant was attacked by a psychiatric patient at her place of employment. Appellant filed a workers' compensation case against Employer. The trial court found that Appellant suffered a compensable injury and that the incident caused an aggravation of a non-work-related condition. The trial court found medical treatment, including surgery, was necessary and reasonable. However, the court denied all compensation fro treatment and bills from medical providers other than one particular doctor, concluding that Appellant failed to produce evidence of a "chain of referral" for the medical providers and that some of the treatment Appellant received was not related to the incident. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in requiring chain-of-referral proof for all medical treatment Appellant received, as Employer denied compensability for Appellant's injury, and Appellant was thereby entitled to choose her treating physicians and avoid the chain of referral. View "Clark v. Alegent Health Neb." on Justia Law

3RP Operating, Inc. filed a claim with a receiver for payment of operating expenses of an oil well. The receiver managed the oil well at issue and was appointed by the district court in an underlying case in which siblings disputed the assets of their parents' estate. The receiver denied 3RP's claim. 3RP intervened in the district court case, seeking payment based on contract and quantum meruit. The district court approved the receiver's denial of the claim for payment of services. The court of appeals affirmed, agreeing with the district court that because 3RP had no corporate existence during the time period for which it sought payment, its claim was correctly denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that 3RP was not entitled to be paid for the operating expenses it sought because it did not legally exist during the time for which it sought payment. View "Sutton v. Killham" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second degree murder. Prior to trial, Defendant filed a motion requesting the district court to redact video recordings of his police interviews. The court excluded certain portions but allowed the remainder. When the remaining portions of Defendant's statements were admitted at trial, Defendant's counsel said that he had either no objection or no "further" objection to the admission of the video recordings. Defendant appealed, arguing that defense counsel's failure to object constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because the response "no further objection" did not present a valid objection, Defendant did not preserve for appeal any evidentiary error that resulted from admitting the statements he previously moved to redact; and (2) the record was insufficient to adequately address whether counsel's failure to object denied Defendant the effective assistance of counsel. View "State v. Huston" on Justia Law

Appellant, a former police officer, was convicted after a jury trial of ten counts of possession of child pornography. Defendant was sentenced to sixty to 120 months' imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) denying Appellant's motion to suppress evidence found on his computer hard drives; (2) finding that the seizure of Appellant's hard drives was based upon probable cause and thus were legally seized; and (3) finding there was sufficient evidence to support Appellant's convictions when the State did not present expert testimony establishing that the actors in the photographs and videos admitted against him were under the age of eighteen. View "State v. Reinpold" on Justia Law

Pursuant to Defendant's plea of no contest, the district court convicted Defendant of second degree murder. Upon sentencing, the court imposed a sentence of fifty years to life imprisonment. Defendant appealed, contending that the court improperly limited or denied his right of allocution and that the court imposed an excessive sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no error in the court's handling of Defendant's allocution; and (2) Defendant failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing him, as the court imposed a sentence within the statutory range and considered the pertinent factors. View "State v. Pereira" on Justia Law

In this workers' compensation case, Employee, an illegal alien, was injured in an accident during the course of his employment with Employer. Employer's insurance carrier subsequently informed Employer that it would terminate payments for Employee's temporary partial disability benefits and start paying permanent partial disability benefits. Employer then determined that Employee did not have proper immigration documents and discharged Employee. A judge found that Employee had sustained a permanent total disability (PTD) and awarded Employee benefits for permanent loss of earning power. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act covers illegal aliens under a contract of hire with a covered employer in Nebraska; (2) the Act does not preclude an award of PTD benefits for illegal aliens; and (3) the trial judge was not clearly wrong in finding that Employee's injury resulted in pain that interfered with his ability to perform the work he had previously performed. View "Moyera v. Quality Pork Int'l " on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a passenger in a car that a law enforcement officer was pursuing when the driver lost control of the car, and the car flipped over. Plaintiff sued County for injuries he sustained during the vehicular pursuit pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 13-911, which authorizes compensation for damages to an "innocent third party" who is injured by such a pursuit. The district court held in favor of Plaintiff and awarded damages to Plaintiff. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the district court did not err in (1) the majority of its evidentiary rulings, and although the court erred in admitting hearsay testimony, the error was harmless; (2) finding that Plaintiff was an "innocent third party"; and (3) calculating County's liability under the relevant statutes. View "Werner v. County of Platte" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to one count of theft by deception in the amount of $500 to $1500 pursuant to a plea bargain. Appellant appealed, contending that the district court erred in failing to inform him that he had a right to a presentence investigation and that, therefore, his waiver of his statutory right to a presentence investigation was not made freely, voluntarily, knowingly, or intelligently. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) under a review of the totality of the circumstances, Appellant was informed of his right to a presentence investigation, was questioned as to whether he had been threatened or promised anything for his decision to waive this right, and was expressly asked if his waiver was made freely and voluntarily; and (2) therefore, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Appellant's waiver was made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. View "State v. Qualls" on Justia Law

Following a bench trial, Appellant was convicted of two counts of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance and two counts of failure to affix a drug tax stamp. Appellant appealed, arguing that probable cause did not exist to stop his vehicle and that consent to search the vehicle was not properly given because of the illegal stop. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the conviction and sentences for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, as (i) the law enforcement officer properly stopped Appellant for violating Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-6,142, and (ii) because at the conclusion of the lawful stop, the officer asked if he could search Appellant's car and Appellant gave consent, there was no violation of Appellant's rights, and the evidence was properly admitted at trial; but (2) reversed Defendant's conviction and sentences for failing to affix a drug tax stamp, as the record contained no evidence regarding the absence of drug tax stamps. Remanded with directions to dismiss the charges for failure to affix a tax stamp. View "State v. Magallanes" on Justia Law

Upon the dissolution of the parties' marriage, the district court entered an order requiring Husband to pay Wife temporary alimony. While Husband's appeal was pending, Wife filed a motion asking the district court to award her temporary alimony pending the appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the district court filed an order awarding Wife temporary alimony. The district court later found Husband to be in contempt for failing to pay temporary alimony and for failing to appear at the contempt hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court had jurisdiction to order Husband to pay temporary alimony when the appeal of the decree of dissolution was pending, and therefore the order was not void, and (2) Husband was subject to contempt for violating the order to pay temporary alimony. View "Spady v. Spady" on Justia Law