Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court to enter an abuse protection order against Jamie P. in favor of her father, William P., following a hearing at which Jamie did not appear, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion in the issuance of the protection order against Jamie.William filed a petition asking police to remove Jamie from his home due to her domestic abuse. The district court entered an order to show cause. Jamie did not appear at the show cause hearing, and the district court entered a domestic abuse protection order against her. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Jamie was properly served with prior notice; and (2) because this Court lacked an adequate record, it was required to presume that the evidence supported the district court's decision to grant a protection order against Jamie. View "William P. v. Jamie P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that Defendant's counsel provided effective assistance.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the State presented circumstantial evidence to prove that Defendant killed the victim purposely and with deliberate and premeditated malice and met its burden of proving each element beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) Defendant failed sufficiently to allege ineffective assistance of trial counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). View "State v. Miranda" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing this complaint brought by Plaintiff, an inmate in the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services system, against the Department and several of its officials (collectively, DCS) under 42 U.S. 1983 and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) regarding Plaintiff's tentative release date, holding that there was no error.Plaintiff sued DCS under section 1983 and the APA, alleging that DCS violated both his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to have his "sentence determined consistent with the statutes and case law of Nebraska." DCS moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the entire was barred by claim preclusion. The district court agreed with DCS and dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in dismissing Plaintiff's action with prejudice; and (2) did not err in not granting Plaintiff leave to amend. View "Schaeffer v. Frakes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the district court relying on the single publication rule to determine when the underlying defamation claim accrued, holding that the district court properly applied the single publication rule.In 2019, Roses Roses posted a review on Timothy Ashford's Google business page stating that he was a "disheveled, unorganized, unreliable attorney with questionable ethics...[.]" Ashford filed two separate lawsuits alleging defamation. The district court entered orders granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants. At issue on appeal was the applicability of the single publication rule to allegedly defamatory internet publications. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no error in the district court's application of the single publication rule; and (2) Ashford's remaining assignments of error were without merit. View "Ashford v. Roses" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed, as modified the post-release supervision order of the district court adding to the conditions of Appellant's post-release supervision before his release from the Department of Correctional Services, holding that modification was warranted.On appeal, Appellant argued that, under Neb. Ct. R. 6-1904(B), the State was required to prove new circumstances to warrant modification of the terms of the post-release supervision order. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's post-release supervision order only to the extent that Appellant have no contact with the victims during the term of his post-release supervision, holding that the State cannot seek changes to the conditions of post-release supervision in the absence of new circumstances. View "State v. Sullivan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding that a material change in circumstances had occurred sufficient to warrant modification of Appellee's alimony obligation, holding that there was no error.When the parties divorced, Appellee was earning $162,000 per year. Appellee was earning $200,000 per year when he was terminated. After the loss of his employment and the subsequent starting of his consulting firm, Appellee filed a motion for modification of his alimony obligation, also citing Appellant's increased income. The district court found a material change in circumstances and entered a new alimony schedule. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion. View "Mackiewicz v. Mackiewicz" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying the petition and application filed by the State of Nebraska, Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to vacate an arbitration award resulting from a labor dispute and confirming the award, holding that the district court did not err.On appeal, DHHS argued that the arbitrator exceeded his powers under DHHS' labor contract the Nebraska Association of Public Employees, Local #61 of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees and that the district court erred in finding that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) whatever insufficiency existed in the findings of fact and conclusions of law, DHHS was instrumental in bringing about that insufficiency; and (2) the district court did not err by finding that the arbitrator did not add to or modify the labor contract and concluding that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers. View "State v. Neb. Ass'n of Public Employees" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court that affirmed the decision of the Nebraska State Personnel Board upholding the termination of Scott Mollring's employment as a teacher for the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, holding that there was no error.On appeal, Mollring argued that the district court erroneously determined that because he had not completed two calendar years of employment at the time of his dismissal, he was a probationary employee who could be terminated without cause. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in concluding that "two years" under Neb. Rev. Stat. 79-845 means two calendar years, and cause was not required; and (2) the court correctly determined that Mollring was still in the probationary period and that his employment could be terminated without cause. View "Mollring v. Neb. Dep't of Health & Human Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting Defendant's motion for a directed verdict against Plaintiffs on their claims for negligence, holding that the district court did not err in granting a directed verdict or in instructing the jury to disregard the testimony of Plaintiffs' expert.Plaintiffs, Alpha Wealth Advisors, LLC and Michael Hall, sued Defendant for negligence following a traffic accident, alleging that they lost commissions because, for several weeks, Hall's injuries from the accident kept him from meeting with clients. The district court granted Defendant's motion for a directed verdict against Plaintiffs on those claims because the evidence was insufficient to submit those claims to a jury. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting a directed verdict or in instructing the jury to disregard the testimony of Plaintiffs' expert. View "Alpha Wealth Advisors v. Cook" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting a summary judgment rejecting Plaintiffs' negligence claim against a university, holding that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment.The university student in this case, a soccer player, was injured while he engaged in a mandatory strength and conditioning workout. The student and his mother (together, Plaintiffs) sued the university, alleging negligence. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the university, ruling the claim was barred by the "Assumption of Risk and Waiver of Liability Release" signed by the student and his mother before he started school. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the release was valid and enforceable and relieved the university of liability for its ordinary negligence; and (2) the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for Plaintiffs. View "Sinu v. Concordia University" on Justia Law