Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the county court in favor of the decedent's brother in this estate case, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the county court erred.Jordon R. Wiggins died, leaving two minor children and an ex-wife. In response to a claim against the estate regarding life insurance coverage that Wiggins was required under the divorce decree to maintain for the children's benefit, Wiggins's ex-wife, as guardian and next friend of the minor children, his brother, and his father, as personal representative of Wiggins's estate, entered into a settlement agreement. Thereafter, the parties jointly filed a petition for a declaration of their rights and obligations under the agreement. The county court ruled in favor of the brother, and the ex-wife appealed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the cause with directions for the county court to rescind the agreement and conduct further proceedings, holding that a mutual mistake as to the existence of a fact that was a material inducement to the contract is not ground for reformation, although it may be ground for rescission. View "In re Estate of Wiggins" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court overruling Defendant's motion to transfer his case to juvenile court, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the transfer.Defendant, who was charged with first-degree sexual assault, requested that the district court transfer his case to juvenile court, asserting that he was under the age of eighteen at the time of the alleged offense. After a hearing, the district court overruled the motion to transfer, finding that the State had met its burden to show that a sound basis existed for retaining jurisdiction of this matter in the district court. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) this case was not moot; and (2) the district court properly exercised its discretion in overruling Defendant's motion to transfer his case to juvenile court. View "State v. Aldana Cardenas" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court denying Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the district court had jurisdiction to determine the merits and correctly rejected the petition on its merits.Appellant, who was incarcerated at the Tecumseh State Correctional Institution, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus asserting that, under the relevant statutes, he had reached his mandatory discharge date, and seeking absolute discharge and release from custody. The district court denied a writ of habeas corpus and dismissed the petition, concluding that it was deprived of jurisdiction in the present matter but, even if it had jurisdiction, the petition failed on the merits. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) had jurisdiction to consider the merits of the petition; and (2) did not err when it determined that Appellant's claim for habeas corpus relief was without merit. View "Schaeffer v. Gable" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the decision of the district court granting a partial summary judgment construing a long-term written lease between Owner and Tenant and, after a trial, entering a judgment regarding the parties dispute over minimum rent, holding that a factual issue existed precluding summary judgment.Owner sued Tenant for breach of contract after the parties could not agree when renegotiating minimum rent, alleging express breach of contract, declaratory judgment, and breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. The district court entered partial summary judgment in favor of Owner construing the lease but held that there were material facts in dispute as to whether Owner violated the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing when renegotiating. After a trial, the court entered judgment for Owner. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the provision in the lease regarding minimum rent is ambiguous, and therefore, the court's entry of partial summary judgment on the issue must be reversed. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Brush & Co. v. W. O. Zangger & Son, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of second degree murder, unlawful discharge of a firearm, and two counts of use of a weapon to commit a felony, holding that there was no error in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in admitting evidence of his character, specifically that he conducted drug deals after the murder, he was the victim of a robbery, and he owned firearms. Defendant also challenged cellular telephone information obtained from a "tower dump." The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no error in the admission of the challenged evidence; and (2) even if the cell phone tower dump was not a search and subject to Fourth Amendment protections, the order under 18 U.S.C. 86-2,106 allowing the dump was executed in good faith. View "State v. Elias" on Justia Law

In this case brought under the Developmental Disabilities Court-Ordered Custody Act (DDCCA) the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court concluding that T.W. was a person in need of court-ordered custody and adopting the custody and treatment plan prepared by the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) with additional restrictions, holding that the district court was entitled to modify the terms of the treatment plan if the additional terms are supported by sufficient evidence.The State filed a petition under the DDCCA for court-ordered custody of T.W., an adult male. The district court found that T.W. was a person in need of court-ordered custody and treatment and, in accordance with Neb. Rev. Stat. 71-1124, ordered DHHS to prepare a written custody and treatment plan. After a hearing, the district court adopted DHHS' treatment plan and added conditions to T.W.'s placement that were not part of the plan offered by the State. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court's order, including the added conditions, conformed to the law, was supported by competent evidence, and was not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. View "In re T.W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court overruling Defendant's motion for a new trial under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2101 to 29-2103 and his motion to withdraw his plea under the common-law procedure recognized in State v. Gonzalez, 830 N.W.2d 504 (2013), holding that Defendant failed to satisfy the requirements for such relief.Defendant pleaded no contest to and was adjudged guilty of one count of attempted delivery or possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance and sentenced to an eight-to-twelve-year term of imprisonment. Later, in response to the indictment of Nebraska State Patrol evidence technician Anna Idigima, Defendant applied for a new trial and moved to withdraw his plea. The district court overruled the motions after holding hearings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in overruling the motions because Defendant failed to satisfy the requirements for a new trial under section 29-2101 and the common-law procedure for withdrawing a plea after conviction. View "State v. Muratella" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of a neighborhood association seeking to enforce a restrictive covenant, holding that the district court did not err in granting the association's motion for summary judgment or in overruling the homeowners' cross-motion for summary judgment.The Pine Tree Neighborhood Association (PTNA) brought this action against Homeowners alleging that Homeowners' lot was subject to a restrictive covenant prohibiting them from continuously parking their RV on their lot and seeking a permanent injunction. In response, Homeowners alleged that the restrictive covenants were unenforceable as a matter of law and, alternatively, that the PTNA waived the right to enforce the covenants. The district court granted summary judgment for the PTNA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for the PTNA. View "Pine Tree Neighborhood Ass'n v. Moses" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the decision of the district court denying Appellant's motion for postconviction relief, holding that the court of appeals erred by granting relief on a claim that Appellant did not present to the district court.Appellant filed a motion for postconviction relief asserting that his failure timely to appeal his convictions was due to the ineffective assistance of his counsel. The district court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the district court did not err in finding that Appellant did not direct counsel to file an appeal but that counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to consult with Appellant as to whether he wished to appeal. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Appellant did not allege in his postconviction motion that trial counsel failed to consult with him about whether he wanted an appeal; and (2) therefore, the court of appeals erred by reversing the district court's decision on that basis. View "State v. Ammons" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's resentencing for the eight felony crimes he committed when he was seventeen years old, holding that there was no merit to Defendant's arguments that the district court imposed an excessive aggregate sentence or an unlawful de facto life sentence.Defendant was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and related crimes. The court sentenced Defendant to mandatory life imprisonment for each first degree murder conviction and to twelve to fifteen years of prison for each remaining conviction, with all sentences to run concurrently except the sentences for weapon convictions, which were to run consecutively to the sentence for the underlying felony conviction. The Supreme Court remanded the case for resentencing. On remand, the district court resentenced Defendant to a combined sentence of 128 to 180 years' imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in resentencing Defendant. View "State v. Ramirez" on Justia Law