Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

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