Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of driving under the influence causing serious bodily injury and his sentence to an eighteen-month term of imprisonment, eighteen months of post-release supervision, and revocation of his driver's license, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by overruling his motion to suppress the results of a breath test administered to him using a DataMaster instrument and by imposing an excessive sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in admitting the results of the DataMaster test; and (2) Defendant's sentence, which was within the applicable statutory range, was not excessive. View "State v. Alkazahy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for first-degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, holding that the evidence at trial was sufficient to support Defendant's convictions.During the underlying jury trial, the prosecution presented various forms of circumstantial evidence connecting Defendant to the shooting death of the victim int his case. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the district court erred in admitting "manipulated video surveillance from multiple sources in [an] attempt to match the walking pattern of the individuals in those videos to a video depicting [Defendant] walking." The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged evidence; (2) the evidence was sufficient to convict Defendant of first-degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony; and (3) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. View "State v. Lorello" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court dismissing Appellant's motion to modify alimony for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the district court had jurisdiction to consider the motion to modify alimony.The parties in this case were divorced by consent decree that awarded Appellant alimony that could be modified if Appellee accepted a veteran's disability pension. Appellant later filed her complaint for modification alleging a material and substantial change in circumstances. The district court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because it believed it was being asked to divide Appellee's veteran's disability benefits, an action that was preempted by federal law. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court was merely being asked to consider modifying alimony based on a reduction in Appellant's nondisability pension he shared with Appellee, and the district court had jurisdiction to consider this request. View "Parish v. Parish" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court entering a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction in favor of Adams Land & Cattle, LLC (ALCC), a commercial livestock company, in this dispute regarding the meaning of a statute governing cattle brand inspection, holding that the district court erred in its interpretation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 54-1,122.ALCC and the Nebraska Brand Committee disputed whether section 54-1,122 requires direct movement from the point of origin with required paperwork to avoid a brand inspection upon entry to the registered feedlot. The district court granted declaratory relief and a permanent injunction for ALCC, and the Brand Committee appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in its interpretation of section 54-1,122 and in granting a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction in favor of ALCC.. View "Adams Land & Cattle v. Widdowson" on Justia Law

In this case brought against Defendant, the sheriff of Dawes County, for failing to receive a lawfully-committed prisoner into the county jail the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court affirming the judgment of the county court convicting and sentencing Defendant for official misconduct in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-924, holding that there was no error.Defendant was charged with official misconduct for refusing to receive a prisoner, who was arrested without a warrant for felony offenses, and the county court found Defendant guilty. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the plain meaning of "lawful commitment" does not require a court order; (2) because a trier of fact found that Defendant's claim that the decision not to receive the prisoner based on the Jail Standards was not credible, Defendant was not entitled to relief on this allegation of error; (3) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claim that, absent a court order, sheriffs effectively have inherent authority to decline to receive arrestees; and (4) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his remaining assignments of error. View "State v. Dailey" on Justia Law

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