Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court overruling Defendant's motion for a new trial following her conviction of possession of a controlled substance, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by disregarding the parties' stipulation that there were sufficient grounds to sustain the motion for a new trial.Defendant appealed after she was convicted but then voluntarily dismissed her appeal upon being informed that an evidence technician who may have been responsible for drug-related evidence in her case had been criminally indicted. Together with the State, Defendant filed a joint motion and stipulation for new trial but did not support the motion with any evidence. The district court overruled the motion for not complying with the requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2102. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) due process was not implicated by the district court's decision to disregard the conclusory stipulation that a new trial should be granted for Defendant; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion finding that the facts did not support a new trial. View "State v. Blocher" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting and sentencing Defendant for use of an electronic communication device to commit sexual assault and enticement, holding that the district court did not err in its instructions to the jury or in imposing sentences.Defendant was convicted and sentenced to fifteen to twenty years for use of an electronic communication device to commit sexual assault and twenty-three to twenty-four months' imprisonment for enticement by an electronic communication device. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, contrary to Defendant's arguments on appeal the district court did not err in either refusing to instruct the jury on entrapment or in imposing excessive sentences. View "State v. Hines" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing, for lack of jurisdiction, this matter opposing the grant of a conditional use permit (CUP) to construct a commercial wind turbine, holding that the district court never acquired jurisdiction over this CUP appeal.The Cherry County Board of Commissioners granted the CUP to BSH Kilgore, LLC for it to construct and operate commercial grade wind turbines near Kilgore, Nebraska. Plaintiffs, parties who opposed the project, appealed the decision to the district court and later were allowed to amend their complaint to challenge the CUP pursuant to a petition in error. The district court dismissed the amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the jurisdictional requirements were not met in this case. View "Preserve the Sandhills v. Cherry County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part and vacated in part the judgments of the district court in this action brought to levy execution against a condominium unit, holding that the district court erred by failing to sustain a motion to quash.McGill Restoration, Inc. obtained a breach of contract judgment against Lion Place Condominium Association and, together with its successor-in-interest, sought and obtained two writs of execution. Both of the writs directed the county sheriff to levy execution against a condominium unit owned by Michael Henery, one of the Association's members. Henery filed motions to quash those writs, but the district court overruled the motions. The Supreme Court vacated the second writ of execution and dismissed Henery's second appeal, holding (1) the district court erred by failing to sustain Henery's motion to quash; and (2) Henery's first appeal divested the district court of jurisdiction over subsequent proceedings. View "McGill Restoration, Inc. v. Lion Place Condominium Ass'n" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal from a second opinion of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the district court affirming the county court's monetary judgment in favor of Richard Muller in this fence dispute action between Muller and John Weeder, holding that, as a result of Weeder's death, the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to issue its opinion and mandate in the first appeal.After the district court affirmed, as modified, the judgment in favor of Muller, Weeder appealed. Weeder died while the case was pending in the court of appeals. Unaware of Weeder's death, the court of appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the matter for further proceedings. On remand, the county court again entered a monetary judgment in favor of Muller. The district court dismissed the second appeal for lack of jurisdiction based on Weeder's death. The Supreme Court remanded this matter to the court in which it was pending at the time of Weeder's death, holding that the court of appeals' opinion and mandate in the first appeal must be vacated as null and void and that this Court lacked jurisdiction over the second appeal. View "Muller v. Weeder" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Lancaster County in this case arising from a dispute between two counties over who should provide general assistance for an indigent individual, holding that the district court did not err.Michael Taul, an indigent individual, filed an application for general assistance. Lancaster County provided general assistance services for Taul until he was approved for Supplemental Security Income. Lancaster County later requested reimbursement from Custer County, which Custer County denied. Lancaster County then brought this lawsuit, alleging that Custer County, as Taul's county of legal settlement at the time he was provided general assistance by Lancaster County, had a duty to pay the costs of the general assistance provided to Taul. The district court granted summary judgment for Lancaster County. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court for Lancaster County had subject matter jurisdiction over Lancaster County's action for reimbursement; and (2) there was no plain error evident from the record. View "County of Lancaster v. County of Custer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal from an order of the county court granting summary judgment in favor of the decedent's girlfriend, Lori Miller, in this dispute over the decedent's house, which comprised the majority of his trust's value, holding that this Court lacked jurisdiction to decide the merits of this matter.In a trust, Michael Hassler, the decedent, devised his house to Miller and bequeathed the trust's residuary to his children in equal shares. The Trustee deeded the house to Miller and allocated inheritance tax resulting from the transfer to the trust's residuary. Plaintiffs, Hassler's children, brought this action against the Trustee and Miller, seeking a determination, among other things, that trust amendments resulted from Miller's undue influence and that the inheritance tax obligations created by the transfer be collected from Miller. The county court granted partial summary judgment for Miller, ordering that inheritance taxes and legal and administrative expenses be paid out of the trust's residuary. The Supreme Court dismissed Plaintiffs' appeal, holding that the apportionment order was not a final order, and therefore, this Court lacked jurisdiction to decide the merits of this matter. View "In re Hessler Living Trust" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing an action seeking to enjoin two members of a county board of commissioners from voting on an application for a conditional use permit (CUP), holding that the district court properly concluded that Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the action.Plaintiffs, opponents of the CUP application, filed a complaint seeking an injunction and alleging, among other things, that two members of the county board of commissioners had conflicts of interest and should be enjoined from considering or voting on the CUP application. The district court ruled that Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the action and dismissed the action. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the issuance of the CUP and that the district court properly dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Preserve the Sandhills v. Cherry County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court continuing an ex parte sexual assault protection order, holding that the sexual assault protection order was properly continued.Amanda F. was granted an ex parte sexual assault protection order against Daniel K. At the close of the evidence, the district court found that a statutory sexual assault offense had occurred, concluded that the risk of future harm was not a consideration under Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-311.11, the sexual assault protection order statute, and that the protection order should remain in effect for a period of one year. The Supreme Court affirmed the continuation of the sexual assault protection order, holding that Daniel did not carry his burden to show cause why the protection order should not remain in effect. View "Amanda F. v. Daniel K." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the compensation court concluding that a claimant who sustains injuries along the same extremity sustains an injury to a single member for workers' compensation purposes, holding that the compensation court's decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-121(3).Claimant injured her right wrist and right elbow upon falling at work. Claimant filed a claim for benefits, asserting that the workers' compensation court should award her permanent disability benefits based on her loss of earning capacity. At issue was section 48-121(3), which provides for discretionary loss of earning capacity where there is a "loss or loss of use of more than one member of parts of more than one member[.]" The compensation court refused to consider an award based on the loss of earning capacity because "an injury to the wrist and the elbow of the same arm is still an injury to a single member and does not entitle an employee to a loss of earning power.” The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the compensation court erred in its interpretation of section 48-121(3). View "Espinoza v. Job Source USA, Inc." on Justia Law