Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for driving under the influence (DUI) but reversed his conviction for violating a municipal traffic signal law, holding that Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-6,123(3)(c) preempted the city ordinance under which Defendant was convicted.Defendant moved to quash count two charging him with violating a municipal traffic signal law and moved to suppress the evidence derived from a traffic stop, which the state intended to offer to prove the charges in count one charging him with DUI, first offense. The county court ruled that city ordinance at issue was not preempted by state law and denied relief. The district court and court of appeals affirmed Defendant's convictions. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the city ordinance was preempted by state law; and (2) it was objectively reasonable for the officer who stopped Defendant to presume that the ordinance was enforceable, and therefore, the county court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress. View "State v. Albarenga" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the juvenile court's adjudication of Appellant for obstruction of a peace officer, holding that serving a protection order falls within the preservation of the peace element of the misdemeanor offense and that the State proved the remaining elements.On appeal, Appellant argued that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the crime of obstructing a peace officer. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed the juvenile court's order adjudicating Appellant to be a child within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-247(1), holding that the State adduced sufficient evidence to prove the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. View "In re Interest of Elijahking F." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded this matter for a new trial, holding that the district court erred in proceeding to a trial without a jury on Plaintiff's causes of action for breach of contract, breach of guaranty, and unjust enrichment.Plaintiff's brought this complaint against Defendants for, among other causes of action, forcible entry and detainer. The district court granted relief on the forcible entry and detainer claim, ordering restitution. After a bench trial, the district court heard the remaining causes of action and awarded damages to Plaintiff. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) Plaintiff's remaining causes of action were legal in nature, and the issues of fact that arose thereunder entitled Defendants to a jury trial unless waived; and (2) there was no waiver of Defendants' right to a jury trial. View "132 Ventures, LLC v. Active Spine Physical Therapy, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court upholding the Tax Commissioner's conclusion that Taxpayers failed to prove that they abandoned their domicile in Florida, holding that competent evidence supported the district court's factual findings and that its decision conformed to the law.The audit period in this case covered the calendar-year tax years from 2010 to 2014. Taxpayers, who filed income tax returns as married filing jointly, filed Nebraska income tax returns claiming status as nonresidents of Nebraska. The Department sent Taxpayers notices of proposed deficiency determinations for each tax year of the audit period, and the Commissioner denied Taxpayers' petitions for redetermination. The district court affirmed, determining that Taxpayers were residents of Nebraska during the audit period because they were domiciled in Nebraska in each of those years. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court's decision conformed to the law, was supported by competent evidence, and was neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable. View "Acklie v. Neb. Department of Revenue" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant on Plaintiff's claims for breach of fiduciary duties, misrepresentation, and infliction of emotional distress, holding that Plaintiff's appeal was without merit.For thirteen months, Defendant represented Plaintiff in a criminal matter involving Plaintiff's indictment on a federal child pornography charge before withdrawing. After Plaintiff pled guilty to an obscenity charge he sued Defendant. The district court construed Plaintiff's claims as legal malpractice and granted summary judgment for Defendant because Plaintiff failed to offer any evidence that he was actually innocent of the charges for which Defendant was representing him. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff's claims of court error in the disposition of the parties' competing motions for summary judgment and in prejudgment interlocutory rulings were without merit. View "Buttercase v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing and without first giving him an opportunity to respond to the State's reply, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for postconviction relief.Defendant was convicted of first degree murder, use of a weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person. The Supreme Court affirmed. Thereafter, Defendant brought his motion for postconviction relief, raising several allegations of error. The district court rejected Defendant's claims without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no merit to Defendant's assignments of error. View "State v. Jennings" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant for terroristic threats, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-311.01, and sentencing him to two years' imprisonment followed by eighteen months of post-release supervision, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his assignments of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err in its interpretation of section 28-311.01(1)(a), as applied to these facts, and there was no merit to Defendant's argument that the terroristic threats statute does not require a recipient of the threat; and (2) venue was proper under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1301 because the State offered sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an element of the terroristic threats occurred in Sarpy County. View "State v. Godek" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant, following a jury trial, of disturbing the peace, holding that the district court did not err by reviewing his appeal only for plain error and that the record was insufficient to reach Defendant's argument that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a statement of errors.Defendant's counsel timely appealed Defendant's county court conviction and later filed a bill of exceptions but did not file a statement of errors within ten days of filing the bill of exceptions. Consequently, the district court reviewed the appeal only for plain error and affirmed the judgment below. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err by limiting its review to plain error; and (2) the record was insufficient to reach Defendant's remaining argument. View "State v. Warren" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant, after a jury trial, of sexual assault in the first degree, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting Defendant from questioning the complaining witness, J.K., about her prior allegation against a doctor.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by prohibiting from asking J.K. about an allegation she made against her prenatal doctor regarding inappropriate touching during the course of a prenatal examination. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court's decision to exclude the evidence did not violate Defendant's constitutional right to confront his accuser. View "State v. Ali" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court granting Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint seeking dissolution of her marriage to Defendant, holding that the district court erred by dismissing this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.In his motion to dismiss, Defendant asserted that the parties were legally divorced in Venezuela, and therefore, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the dissolution action under Rule 12(b)(1) and lacked personal jurisdiction over Defendant under Rule 12(b)(2). The district court sustained the motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court erred in concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the dissolution action because the complaint's allegations sufficiently established the court's subject matter jurisdiction over the marital relationship; and (2) the district court erred to the extent it relied on its equitable estoppel findings to support dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Bleich v. Bleich" on Justia Law