Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court dismissed Defendant's appeal from his conviction and sentence, holding that Defendant's agreement to waive his right to appeal applied to and was enforceable against his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.Prior to the sentencing hearing for his convictions for possession of methamphetamine and driving under the influence Defendant entered into a plea and sentencing agreement agreeing in a second case to plead no contest to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and to waive his right to appeal issues in both cases. The district court accepted the plea and sentence agreement and sentenced Defendant in both cases. The Supreme Court dismissed Defendant's ensuing appeal asserting that trial counsel was ineffective for allowing Defendant to testify in his own behalf and for eliciting incriminating testimony, holding that Defendant validly waived the right to raise his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on appeal. View "State v. Hamm" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to Defendant, an ophthalmologist, and dismissing Plaintiff's claim of professional negligence on statute of limitations grounds, holding that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds.In granting summary judgment in Defendant's favor the district court described the case as a medical malpractice suit that was clearly barred by the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant waived the right to seek dismissal on statute of limitations grounds based on evidence outside the complaint, and it was not apparent from the face of the complaint that his claims were barred; and (2) therefore, the district court erred in granting Defendant summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds. View "Schuemann v. Timperley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the conclusion of the court of appeals that the record refuted two of Appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to object to improper evidence under Neb. Rev. Stat. 27-404, holding that, while this Court's reasoning differed from that employed by the court of appeals, there was no error in the court's ultimate judgment.After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and sentenced to a term of twenty-five to thirty years' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed, thus rejecting Appellant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for counsel's failure to object to improper rule 404 evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, while this Court's reasoning differed from that employed by the court of appeals, this Court's conclusion on the judgment was the same. View "State v. Wheeler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the permanent injunction against Defendants for cybersquatting, holding that Charter West Bank failed to produce evidence showing it was entitled to protection under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA).Charter West brought this lawsuit against pursuant to the ACPA in state district court seeking an injunction enjoining Defendants from using the domain name "www.charterwestbank.com" and using the website to post information that would reflect negatively on Charter West. The district court concluded that Defendants violated the ACPA by threatening to use the website to disseminate adverse information unless the bank purchased it for $1 million. The district court granted Charter West's request for a permanent injunction and enjoined Defendants from using any domain name containing the words "charter west." The Supreme Court reversed and vacated the injunction, holding that Charter West failed to prove it owned a mark that was "distinctive" or "famous" and therefore did not meet the requirements of the ACPA. View "Charter West Bank v. Riddle" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs' insurer and its agent in this negligence action brought by Plaintiffs seeking to recover damages after their home was destroyed in a fire, holding that the district court did not err.Insureds purchased a homeowners insurance policy from Insurer through a licensed insurance producer (Agent). Insureds later filed a complaint alleging that Agent negligently advised them on the estimated replacement value of their home and negligently misrepresented the adequacy of their policy limits in the event of a total loss. Insureds also alleged that Insurer was liable under a theory of respondent superior. The district court granted summary judgment for Insurer and Agent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Insureds' claims failed as a matter of law and that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment. View "Callahan v. Brant" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed these appeals involving a settlement regarding the distribution of the decedent's estate for lack of appellate jurisdiction, holding that the lower court's order was not final and appealable.After the decedent died, his widow retained an undivided one-half interest in land holds, and the other one-half interest went into a trust. One of the three children brought three separate actions against two of the three children and the widow, and the parties signed a mediated settlement memorandum. Thereafter, Plaintiff successfully moved in all three cases for the court to enforce the settlement memorandum the court issued an order finding the settlement memorandum to be valid and enforceable. Defendants appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the order being appealed from was not a final judgment because it did not dispose fully of the underlying cases, which remained pending below. View "Paxton v. Paxton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant for possession with intent to distribute marijuana and failure to affix a tax stamp, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the district court (1) did not err by denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence of marijuana found when law enforcement conducted a warrantless search of a duffel bag and suitcase on a passenger trial; (2) did not err in failing to suppress certain testimony at trial; (3) did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion for a mistrial; and (4) did not abuse its wide discretion in sentencing Defendant to four to six years of imprisonment for possession with intent to distribute marijuana. View "State v. Vaughn" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court in this medical malpractice action brought by Parents against the two doctors involving in the birth and emergency care of their infant son, holding that Parents were not entitled to relief on their allegations of error.On appeal, Parents argued that the district court abused its discretion by excluding expert testimony concerning causation due to a lack of pretrial disclosure and lack of foundation and that a reasonable jury could have found in their favor of their malpractice claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion by excluding the expert testimony; and (2) the district court correctly directed verdicts for the defendants because Parents failed to present sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable jury to make findings in their favor on each element of their malpractice claims. View "Carson v. Steinke" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim after finding that claim preclusion applied and that the complaint failed to state a claim, holding that claim preclusion applied.Plaintiff twice sued Defendant, her former employer, for malicious prosecution seeking damages based on her criminal prosecution, which occurred in Johnson County. After the Johnson County district court dismissed the civil action with prejudice for failure to state a claim Plaintiff sued in Lancaster County. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss and asked the court to consider public records from the Johnson County civil and criminal proceedings involving Defendant. The district court dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly dismissed the second malicious prosecution action because the dismissal with prejudice of Defendant's first malicious prosecution action became a judgment on the merits, and the other elements of claim preclusion were satisfied. View "Bohling v. Tecumseh Poultry LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing, holding that the district court did not err in determining that all of Defendant's claims were either insufficiently pled or affirmatively refuted by the record.Defendant, in inmate who was serving consecutive sentences for three convictions, including a life sentence for first degree murder, brought this motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel both at trial and on direct appeal. The district court denied the motion after determining that all of Defendant's claims were either insufficiently pled or affirmatively refuted by the record. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that none of Defendant's claims warranted an evidentiary hearing and that the district court properly overruled Defendant's motions to add exhibits and to appoint counsel. View "State v. Cox" on Justia Law