Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court overruling Defendant's motion to dismiss the criminal case against him for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to the intrastate detainer statutes, holding that the district court did not err.The State charged Defendant with two felonies. Defendant later filed a motion to dismiss due to the State's failure to bring him to trial within the statutory 180-day time limit. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the interstate detainer statutes, including the speedy trial provision of Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-3805, cease to apply to a criminal defendant when he is discharged from the custody of the Department of Correctional Services (DCS); and (2) Nebraska's intrastate detainer statutes no longer applied to Defendant after he was discharged from DCS custody. View "State v. Yzeta" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court finding that this action brought by Plaintiff against Janice German and Dawes County Abstract & Title, Inc. (collectively, German) arising from title abstracting and issuing commitments and title insurance services German performed for a series of transactions, holding that the district court did not err.The district court concluded (1) the amended complaint stated a single cause of action for professional negligence against German as an abstracter with several theories of recovery; and (2) Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-2222, the two-year statute of limitations for professional negligence, applied, thus time-barring the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly concluded that Plaintiff was performing abstracter services during the time period in issue; and (2) abstracters of title provide "professional services" within the meaning of section 25-222. View "Mai v. German" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed as modified the judgment of the district court dismissing this lawsuit brought by Cheryl Mueller to halt the pursuit of a setoff against the share of the estate of Lorine Mueller that would otherwise pass to Cheryl, holding that the merits of Cheryl's lawsuit should not have been entertained.At issue in this dispute over the administration of Lorine's estate (Estate) was whether a Nebraska judgment entered in favor of Lorine and against Cheryl, the widow of Lorine's deceased son, should be set off against the share of the Estate that would otherwise pass to Cheryl. In her complaint, Cheryl sought to halt the pursuit of a setoff by seeking a declaration that an agreement between Cheryl and Lorine's daughter, Margo Loop, precluded setoff. The district court dismissed this action with prejudice on summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding that the district court abused its discretion to the extent it reached the merits of this action. View "Mueller v. Peetz" on Justia Law