Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A swine producer experienced a disease outbreak in its sow facility and sued two manure management companies, alleging the outbreak was caused by their failure to follow biosecurity protocols. The swine producer sought $1.5 million in damages under breach of contract and negligence theories. The claims against one company were dismissed, and the remaining company, Frost, moved for summary judgment on both theories.The district court for Burt County granted summary judgment in favor of Frost, finding no contractual relationship between Frost and the swine producer and concluding that Frost owed no duty to the producer. The swine producer appealed, and Frost cross-appealed on the issue of causation.The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment on the breach of contract claim but reversed on the negligence claim, finding that Frost owed a duty of reasonable care. The court noted that the standard of care and whether Frost breached it were factual questions for the jury. However, it declined to address Frost’s cross-appeal on causation, as the district court had not ruled on that issue.On further review, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court agreed with the district court that Frost was entitled to summary judgment on the negligence claims. It found no evidence of an industry standard prohibiting manure pumpers from pumping at a sow facility after a hog finishing facility and concluded that Frost did not breach the standard of care by failing to inform the producer of his previous pumping location. The case was remanded with directions to affirm the grant of summary judgment. View "Ronnfeldt Farms v. Arp" on Justia Law

Deontae Rush appealed from convictions of first-degree murder and using a firearm to commit a felony. He had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder conviction and 25-35 years for the firearm offense, to be served consecutively. Rush challenged various evidentiary rulings made by the district court. He also argued that the lower court should have granted his motion for a mistrial due to statements made by the prosecutor during closing arguments. Rush further alleged ineffective assistance of counsel on numerous grounds. He also argued that the evidence was insufficient to show that he used a firearm beyond a reasonable doubt.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decisions. It found no merit in most of the assignments of error, while it concluded that it could not resolve certain claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. The court noted that any rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the weapons offense based on the evidence presented. It also noted that a trial court has significant discretion over matters such as evidentiary determinations and whether to grant a motion for a mistrial. Since it found no abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court did not disturb these decisions by the district court. View "State v. Rush" on Justia Law

A group of 29 physicians challenged a proposed ballot initiative in Nebraska that sought to add a new section to the state constitution, protecting unborn children from abortion in the second and third trimesters, except in cases of medical emergency, sexual assault, or incest. The physicians argued that the initiative violated the single subject rule and would create voter confusion.The Nebraska Supreme Court had previously reviewed a similar initiative titled "Protect the Right to Abortion" and found it did not violate the single subject rule. The physicians conceded that if the first initiative was allowed, the second should be as well, given their structural similarities. They filed for a writ of mandamus to prevent the second initiative from appearing on the ballot, arguing it should be withheld based on the same principles applied to the first initiative.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that the second initiative did not violate the single subject rule. The court applied the "natural and necessary" test and found that all parts of the initiative related to the same subject. The court also noted that arguments about potential voter confusion were not separate requirements for determining the legal sufficiency of the measure. Additionally, the court found that other arguments presented by the physicians were not ripe for review, as they were based on contingent future events.Ultimately, the Nebraska Supreme Court denied the writ of mandamus, allowing the second initiative to appear on the ballot. The court dissolved the alternative writ and concluded that the Secretary of State did not have a duty to withhold the initiative from the general election ballot. View "State ex rel. Constance v. Evnen" on Justia Law

Two relators challenged a ballot initiative proposing to amend the Nebraska Constitution to include a right to abortion. The initiative sought to establish a fundamental right to abortion until fetal viability or when necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient, without state interference. The relators argued that the initiative violated the single subject rule of the Nebraska Constitution and contained confusing language.In the lower courts, the relators presented their objections to the Nebraska Secretary of State, who decided to certify the initiative for the ballot. The relators then filed petitions for writs of mandamus to compel the Secretary of State to remove the initiative from the ballot. The Nebraska Supreme Court granted leave to file the actions and issued alternative writs of mandamus, ordering the Secretary of State to show cause why the initiative should not be removed.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that the initiative did not violate the single subject rule. The court found that the initiative's provisions were naturally and necessarily related to the general subject of creating a constitutional right to abortion. The court also rejected the argument that the initiative's language was confusing and misleading. Consequently, the court denied the writs of mandamus and dissolved the alternative writs by operation of law. View "State ex rel. Brooks v. Evnen" on Justia Law

A self-described "lay midwife" was charged by the State of Nebraska with practicing a profession without a credential after being ordered to cease and desist. The midwife, who did not hold a state-issued credential, provided prenatal and postnatal care and assisted with childbirth. The charges were based on her alleged violation of the Uniform Credentialing Act (UCA).In Madison County, the district court sustained the midwife's plea in abatement, finding that "nurse midwives" were not required to hold credentials under the UCA. The court also suggested that the UCA would be unconstitutionally vague if it required a credential for practicing "nurse midwifery." Similarly, in Douglas County, the district court sustained a plea in abatement on the same grounds, dismissing the charges against the midwife.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the district courts had misconstrued the UCA. The court held that the UCA requires individuals to hold a credential to engage in practices such as attending childbirth and providing related care, which fall under the scope of medicine and surgery, advanced practice registered nursing, and certified nurse midwifery. The court also found that the evidence presented was sufficient to show probable cause that the midwife had committed the charged crime.The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the district courts' orders sustaining the pleas in abatement and dismissing the charges. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, including consideration of the midwife's motions to quash and demurrers. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

The case involves Kolton Barnes, who was convicted of first-degree murder, intentional cruelty to an animal, two counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, two counts of negligent child abuse, and evidence tampering. The charges stemmed from the death of his fiancée, Kayla Matulka, and his dog, both found in their home. Barnes claimed self-defense, stating Matulka attacked him after killing the dog. The prosecution argued Barnes killed Matulka after she broke up with him.In the District Court for Saunders County, Nebraska, Barnes sought access to Matulka’s mental health records to support his defense. The court granted partial access but denied a motion to compel further records from an out-of-state insurer, citing jurisdictional issues and the sufficiency of already provided records. Barnes also moved to exclude evidence of prior threats he made to a former girlfriend, which the court allowed, finding it relevant to motive and intent. At trial, the jury found Barnes guilty on all counts except for the two counts of intentional child abuse, where he was found guilty of the lesser charge of negligent child abuse.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to compel further records, as Barnes had ample evidence of Matulka’s mental health issues. The court also upheld the admission of prior threat evidence, finding it relevant to Barnes' motive and intent. The court found no error in the exclusion of a document about demonic possession or in the admission of a timeline of cell phone activities. Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and due process violations were dismissed, as the court found no plain error. The evidence was deemed sufficient to support the murder conviction, and the sentences for use of a deadly weapon were not excessive. The court affirmed Barnes' convictions and sentences. View "State v. Barnes" on Justia Law

Gregory Moore was convicted of second-degree murder and use of a weapon to commit a felony after a jury trial. The incident occurred in November 2020, when Moore was living in an apartment building in Scottsbluff, Nebraska. Early one morning, a tenant heard noises and a man yelling for help from Moore’s apartment. Later, the building manager and police found Moore with blood on him and the body of Fernando Camacho-McBride inside the apartment. Moore claimed someone had entered illegally and was looking at his "inventory." Camacho-McBride had multiple stab wounds, including a fatal one to his arm. Moore was charged with second-degree murder and use of a deadly weapon.The Scotts Bluff County District Court admitted evidence of a prior assault by Moore in March 2020, where he attacked his landlord with a knife, claiming he was protecting his "inventory." Moore objected, arguing this evidence was prejudicial and only showed his propensity for violence. The court allowed the evidence, finding it relevant to Moore’s motive, intent, knowledge, and absence of mistake or accident. The jury was instructed to consider the evidence only for these limited purposes.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and upheld the lower court’s decision. The court found that the evidence of the prior assault was relevant for purposes other than showing Moore’s propensity for violence. It was pertinent to proving Moore’s motive, intent, knowledge, and absence of mistake or accident. The court also determined that the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, especially given the limiting instruction provided to the jury. Consequently, Moore’s convictions and sentences were affirmed. View "State v. Moore" on Justia Law

Precision Castparts Corp. (Precision Castparts) sought to deduct income included in its 2017 federal tax return under 26 U.S.C. § 965 (Section 965) from its Nebraska taxable income. Section 965, part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), required U.S. shareholders to include retained earnings of controlled foreign corporations (CFCs) in their income. Precision Castparts argued that this income should be deductible under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-2716(5), which allows deductions for "dividends received or deemed to be received" from foreign corporations.The Tax Commissioner denied Precision Castparts' request to amend its 2017 Nebraska tax return to claim this deduction, stating that Section 965 income is not considered "dividends" under federal tax law. The Commissioner concluded that Section 965 income is a "deemed inclusion" rather than a "deemed dividend."The district court for Lancaster County affirmed the Tax Commissioner’s decision. The court reasoned that Section 965 income does not meet the definition of a dividend under federal tax law because it involves no actual distribution. The court also agreed with the Tax Commissioner that Congress did not explicitly deem Section 965 inclusions as dividends, unlike other provisions in the Internal Revenue Code.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Court held that Section 965 income does not qualify as "dividends . . . deemed to be received" under § 77-2716(5). The Court noted that Section 965 employs pass-through treatment, attributing earnings to shareholders without deeming a distribution. Therefore, the income included under Section 965 is not deductible in Nebraska. The Court concluded that the district court did not err in affirming the Tax Commissioner’s order. View "Precision Castparts Corp. v. Nebraska Dept. of Rev." on Justia Law

The case involves the prosecution of Kay E. Anderson for multiple misdemeanor violations of a city property maintenance code at a residential apartment complex in Omaha, Nebraska, known as Yale Park. Anderson was responsible for managing and maintaining the complex, which consisted of 13 buildings with approximately 100 residential units. In September 2018, city inspectors, acting on numerous tenant complaints about unsafe living conditions, obtained an inspection warrant and discovered approximately 2,500 code violations. Anderson was subsequently charged with 99 counts of violating the Omaha Municipal Code (OMC).In the county court, Anderson filed motions to suppress the evidence obtained from the inspection, arguing that the warrant was invalid because inspectors had not complied with the statutory requirement to seek consent before obtaining the warrant. The county court initially granted the motion, but the district court reversed, finding Anderson lacked standing to challenge the warrant for units leased to others. Anderson's renewed motion to suppress was denied, and he was convicted on four counts after a bench trial.On appeal, Anderson argued that the evidence should have been suppressed due to the invalid warrant and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the failure to seek consent before obtaining the inspection warrant did not render the warrant constitutionally invalid. The court held that the omitted information about not seeking consent was not material to the probable cause finding. Additionally, the court found that the violation of the statutory requirement did not affect Anderson's substantial rights and did not require suppression of the evidence.The court also found sufficient evidence to support Anderson's convictions. The violation notices were properly served, Anderson was responsible for maintenance, and he knowingly failed to comply with the correction orders for at least 90 days. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed Anderson's convictions and sentences. View "State v. Anderson" on Justia Law

Sandra K. Nieveen owned property in Lincoln, Nebraska, which was free of encumbrances. After failing to pay property taxes, TAX 106 purchased a tax certificate for the delinquent taxes. TAX 106 later transferred its interest to Vintage Management, LLC, which obtained a tax deed for the property. Nieveen alleged that the property was worth significantly more than the tax debt and claimed that the issuance of the tax deed violated her constitutional rights.The District Court for Lancaster County dismissed Nieveen’s constitutional claims for failure to state a claim and later granted summary judgment in favor of the county on her remaining claim. The court found that Nieveen was not entitled to an extended redemption period due to a mental disorder. Nieveen appealed, and the Nebraska Supreme Court initially affirmed the district court’s decision.The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Nebraska Supreme Court’s judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Tyler v. Hennepin County, which recognized a plausible takings claim when a property was sold for more than the tax debt. Upon reconsideration, the Nebraska Supreme Court concluded that Nieveen had alleged a plausible takings claim against Vintage Management, LLC, as the issuance of the tax deed deprived her of property value exceeding her tax debt. The court affirmed the dismissal of claims against other defendants and declined to reconsider the Excessive Fines Clause claim, as just compensation under the Takings Clause would provide complete relief.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings regarding the takings claim against Vintage Management, LLC. View "Nieveen v. TAX 106" on Justia Law