Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding Defendant guilty, after a bench trial, of exploiting a vulnerable adult in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-386 and sentencing her to five years' probation, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.After a bench trial, Defendant, a licensed attorney, was convicted of exploitation of a vulnerable adult. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction; (2) there was no merit to Defendant's argument that the State failed to prove the requisite criminal intent to convict her of exploiting a vulnerable adult; (3) there was nothing in the court's sentencing remarks that contradicted or undermined its prior verdict finding Defendant guilty; and (4) even if the trial court's conclusions of law were not as detailed as Defendant would have liked, that did not provide a basis for reversible error. View "State v. Vanderford" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated a portion of the district court's order in this will contest, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to award attorney fees and expenses.The jury in this case found that the will at issue was invalid as the product of undue influence. The proponent of the will appealed, arguing that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict. The opponent of the will cross-appealed, challenging an award of attorney fees and expenses purportedly awarded under Neb. Rev. Stat. 30-2481 and 30-2482. The Supreme Court vacated the attorney fees and expenses portion of the order and otherwise affirmed, holding (1) the jury's undue influence finding was not unreasonable; (2) there was no error related to opposing counsel's reference to the admission of a challenged text message; and (3) the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter the award of attorney fees and expenses incurred in defending the will contest proceeding. View "In re Estate of Koetter" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and in part reversed and remanded the judgment of the district court finding that Appellant was in contempt of court of orders contained in a divorce decree from Appellee, holding that the court erred in several respects.The district court found that for the tax years 2014 and 2019 Appellant willful violated the dependency tax exemption provisions of her marital dissolution decree and the order in modification. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the order finding Appellant in contempt for taking tax exemptions for the 2014 tax year but affirmed with respect to her filing for 2019, holding that Appellant was not in contempt of the decree when she took a dependency tax exemption for 2014; (2) vacated the award to Appellee for tax year 2014, holding that Appellee he was not harmed in 2014; (3) vacated the damages awarded to Appellee for a lost coronavirus relief payment for the 2019 tax year for lack of proof; and (4) reversed the award of attorney fees to Appellee. View "Yochum v. Yochum" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court affirming the order of the county court denying Appellant's handgun appeal, holding that the lower courts did not err in denying the appeal.The Sarpy County sheriff's office denied Appellant's application for a handgun certificate pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 69-2404 and 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9), determining that Appellant's previous conviction for third degree assault met the criteria for domestic violence under federal law. Appellant appealed, arguing that he had never been convicted of a crime of domestic violence. The county court denied the appeal, and the district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion. View "Scalise v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court finding that Plaintiff did not waive its right to arbitration by its litigation-related conduct, holding that reversal was required in light of Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., __ U.S. __ (2022).Plaintiff sued Defendant for breach of contract. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, arguing that Plaintiff waived its breach of contract claim under the parties' agreement by filing suit on the claim rather than commencing it in arbitration. Plaintiff subsequently filed a demand for arbitration and a motion to stay the case for arbitration. The district court granted Plaintiff's motion to stay the case, concluding that Defendant suffered no prejudice because of Plaintiff's litigation-related conduct. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that prejudice is not required to prove a party waived its right to stay a court case pending arbitration under section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act following the United States Supreme Court's decision in Morgan. View "Kingery Construction Co. v. 6135 O Street Car Wash, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Petitioner's petition for declaratory judgment under the Administrative Procedure Act and Nebraska's Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, holding that good time earned pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 83-1.107(2)(b) has no applicability to an inmate's parole eligibility date (PED).Petitioner, an inmate in the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (DCS) system, brought a petition for declaratory judgment arguing that good time credit earned pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 83-1,107(2)(b) applies to an inmate's PED. The district court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that good time credit earned pursuant to section 83-107(2)(b) is applicable only to reduce an inmate's maximum sentence. View "Heist v. Neb. Dep't of Corrections" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court overruled the exception filed by the State in this exception proceeding after the district court granted Defendant's motion for absolute discharge, holding that there was no merit to the State's arguments.Shortly before the scheduled date for his trial Defendant moved for absolute discharge on the grounds that she had not been brought to trial before the running of the six-month speedy trial period under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1207. The district court granted absolute discharge. The State then filed this exception proceeding, arguing that by agreeing to an initial trial date that was outside the sixth-month speedy trial period, Defendant consented to the excludable period of delay within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1207(4)(b) or, alternatively, that the Defendant invited the error in scheduling. The Supreme Court overruled the exception, holding that the trial court correctly found that the State failed to bring Defendant to trial before the running of the statutory speedy trial period. View "State v. Space" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court finding that Dietzel Enterprises, Inc. (Dietzel) was the first party to materially breach a contract between Dietzel and J.A. Wever Construction, LLC and awarding Wever damages, holding that the evidence did not support the entirety of the damages awarded to Wever.Wever contracted with Dietzel to perform excavation work for the construction of a transmission line, but Dietzel eventually abandoned the project before work was completed. Dietzel brought this action asserting various claims, and Wever counterclaimed for breach of contract. The district court awarded judgment in favor of Wever. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the evidence in the record did not support the entirety of the court's damages award; and (2) the district court did not otherwise err. View "Dietzel Enterprises, Inc. v. J. A. Wever Construction, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding that the exclusivity provisions of the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act (the Act), Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-101 to 48-1,117 barred the claim of an employee of the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services that the Department violated the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act (NFEPA), Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-1101 to 48-1125, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the employee's NFEPA action.Plaintiff was injured while participating in mandated self-defense training and sought and received workers' compensation benefits from the time she was injured. After Plaintiff was unable to find a position with the Department that would accommodate her physical restrictions she brought this action against the Department for wrongful termination on the basis of her disability, in violation of NFEPA. The district court granted summary judgment for the Department on the basis of the exclusivity provisions of the Act barred Plaintiff's NFEPA claim as a matter of law. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction over Plaintiff's NFEPA claim. View "Dutcher v. Nebraska Dep't of Correctional Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the county court denying Nebraska Synod (Synod) of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's complaint in intervention after a county court determined that the Synod was not Pella Evangelical Lutheran Church's charitable successor and assign, holding that the Synod did not prove it was a charitable successor of Pella.Before her death, Margaret L. Matthews established and amended a revocable trust wherein she made three bequests - one each to the Salvation Army and the Visting Nurse Association (VNA) and one to Pella. Each bequest encompassed the named beneficiary, as well as its charitable successors and assigns. Wells Fargo Bank, N.C., as trustee, filed a petition for declaratory judgment concerning Pella's existence. The county court ordered that Pella's share of the trust property be distributed pro rata to the Salvation Army and the VNA after concluding that Pella had ceased to exist and that Synod was not an appropriate successor to Pella. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Synod's assigned errors were without merit. View "In re Margaret L. Matthews Revocable Trust" on Justia Law