Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court affirmed as modified the order of the district court dismissing the amended complaint in this case with prejudice and imposing sanctions against Plaintiffs, holding that to the extent the order purported to make rulings affecting RLI Insurance Company, the order is modified to delete any ruling regarding RLI.Plaintiffs sued public notary Linda Hagemeier and RLI, her surety, for damages based on the allegation that Hagemeier did not in fact witness Plaintiffs' signatures on certain documents. The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, determining that the claims were barred by Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-207(3)'s four-year statute of limitations and that the litigation was frivolous, willful, in bad faith, and vexatious. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) because RLI was not served and did not appear in district court, the district court's order regarding timeliness did not apply to RLI; (2) the district court correctly concluded that the claims against Hagemeier must be dismissed as time barred with prejudice; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed sanctions against Plaintiffs. View "Trausch v. Hagemeier" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of intentional child abuse resulting in death and making terroristic threats, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other claims of error, that the district court failed to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of manslaughter and that this error constituted structural error depriving him of due process. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to change venue; and (2) Defendant was not prejudiced by the district court's refusal to give a requested instruction on involuntary manslaughter, and therefore, reversal was not required. View "State v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the county court finding that it was not in the best interest of the minor child at issue in this case to grant a petition to adopt the child (Child), whose parents died as the result of a murder-suicide, holding that there was no error.Child was five years old when her father killed her mother and then committed suicide. Thereafter, the Department of Health an Human Services (DHHS) took temporary protective custody of Child, who was adjudicated under Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-247(3)(a). The deceased couple's wills nominated Kelly, Child's biological maternal grandmother, as guardian for Child. Kelly filed a petition for guardianship of Child, after which Petitioners filed a petition for adoption. The county court denied the petition for adoption on the basis that it was not in Child's best interests to grant the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in its best interests analysis. View "In re Adoption of Faith F." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court entering summary judgment in favor of Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. and against Roynetta McDavid in this lawsuit alleging that McDavid breached the idemnification provision of the parties' rental agreement, holding that the district court erred in denying summary judgment to McDavid.In Nebraska, McDavid rented a car from Avis to take a trip with her family. When the traveling party reached Tennessee, McDavid's sister, despite an admonition to the contrary, drove the car and was involved in an accident with another vehicle. Three passengers in the other vehicle were injured in the collision and filed suit against McDavid's sister. Avis paid the injured parties $40,100, and when McDavid did not reimburse Avis, Avis brought suit, alleging that McDavid breached the rental agreement's indemnification provision. The district court granted summary judgment for Avis. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Avis failed to demonstrate a right to indemnity under the rental agreement, and therefore, the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Avis. View "Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. v. McDavid" on Justia Law

In this criminal case, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion for absolute discharge upon determining that a forty-two-day continuance granted at the State's request was excluded from the speedy trial calculation, holding that the district court did not err in denying the motion.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the district court was bound by a prior oral ruling that the speedy trial clock would run during the State's continuance unless it specifically addressed the prior order before it could determine whether the State's continuance was excluded from the speedy trial calculation under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1207(4). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the period of the State's continuance was excluded and in denying Defendant's motion for discharge. View "State v. Nelson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of attempted incest and intentional child abuse resulting in death, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Z.M. attempted suicide by taking her mother's prescription steroid pills. At the emergency room she reported that "her father [Defendant] sexually abused her and she was trying to commit suicide." Two years later, Z.M. expressed a desire to reunify with Defendant, after which Defendant sexually propositioned her. Later that year, Z.M. committed suicide. Defendant pled guilty to attempted incest, and a jury convicted him of intentional child abuse resulting in death. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the child abuse resulting in death statute is not void for vagueness; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's convictions; (3) the district court did not commit reversible evidentiary errors; (4) there was no error in the jury instructions; and (5) Defendant's remaining allegations of error were unavailing. View "State v. Matteson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed as modified the decision of the district court continuing a harassment protection against Justina R. in favor of Diedra T. and Diedra's two minor children, holding that the order must be modified to exclude the children.Dustina, Diedra, and Diedra's husband had sexual relations. Diedra later filed a petition to obtain a harassment protection order against Justina on behalf of herself and her children, alleging that after Diedra had ended the sexual relationship Justina had harassed her. The district court ruled in Deidra's favor to the as to the harassment protection order. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to continue the harassment protection order in Diedra, and there was no violation of Justina's due process rights during the proceedings; and (2) the record showed insufficient evidence to warrant continuing the harassment protection order as to the children. View "Diedra T. v. Justina R." on Justia Law