Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed in part the decision of the district court granting summary judgment in three cases consolidated for appeal involving foreclosures of construction liens under the Nebraska Construction Lien Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. 52-125 to 52-159, holding that summary judgment was proper but that an award of attorney fees was not.At issue in these appeals was whether equitable considerations made summary judgment improper, whether prejudgment interest was authorized in each case, and whether attorney fees were recoverable. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) summary judgment was proper because there was no dispute that the supplier complied with the provisions of the Nebraska Construction Lien Act; (2) an award of prejudgment interest was authorized because the claims were liquidated; and (3) under the circumstances, there was no statutory authorization for an award of attorney fees. View "Echo Group, Inc. v. Tradesmen International" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed in part and reversed in part Appellant's appeal of the district court's rulings finding that Jerald Schreiber was unjustly enriched and ordering him to pay an additional $400,184 to a limited liability company (LLC) he owned in equal shares with his brother, Steven Schreiber, holding that the district court erred in part.Steven brought a complaint seeking the dissolution of the LLC at issue. The district court ordered dissolution and directed a receiver to liquidate the LLC's assets, including two buildings owned by the company but located on property owned by Jerald. Because Jerald made the sole offer to purchase the buildings, the parties agreed that the district court should order the receiver to accept the offer but that Steven and the LLC could continue to pursue a claim of unjust enrichment. The district court concluded that Jerald had been unjustly enriched and denied Jerald's motion asking the district court to provide further directions to the receiver. The Supreme Court (1) dismissed the order denying Jerald's motion for further directions for lack of jurisdiction; and (2) reversed the district court's order finding that Jerald was unjustly enriched, holding that the district court erred. View "Schreiber Brothers Hog Co. v. Schreiber" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the juvenile court denying Gunner B.'s motion for a new trial after the juvenile court entered an order finding that Gunner was a child within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-247(1), holding that Gunner's assignments of error were without merit.The State filed a petition alleging that Gunner was a child within the meaning of section 43-247(1) and had committed sexual assault in the third degree, as that crime is set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-320(1) and (3). The juvenile court found that Gunner was a child within the meaning of section 43-247(1) and set the case for disposition. After the juvenile court denied Gunner's ensuing motion for a new trial Gunner appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's assignments of error were without merit and that the evidence was sufficient to prove Gunner's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. View "In re Gunner B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Plaintiff's tort action against the State of Nebraska, the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (DCS) and its director, and the Nebraska State Patrol (NSP), holding that the State had not waived its its sovereign immunity with respect to Plaintiff's claim.Plaintiff filed this negligence action alleging "Negligent Disclosure and Review of Sealed Records" alleging that NSP negligently disclosed Plaintiff's sealed criminal history records to DCS in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-3523. The district court dismissed the complaint, in its entirety, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff failed to allege a tort claim as that term is defined in the State Tort Claims Act (STCA), Neb. Rev. Stat. 81-8,209 to 81-8,235; and (2) therefore, the State did not waive its sovereign immunity with respect to Plaintiff's claim. View "Doe v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals extending a procedural remedy for "claims of official negligence" to an appeal that was purportedly lost due to an appointed postconviction counsel's actions, holding that the decision below extended State v. Parnell, 919 N.W.2d 900 (Neb. 2018), and State v. Jones, 950 N.W.2d 625 (Neb. 2020), beyond their applicable scope.In this criminal case, the court dismissed Appellant's motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Appellant did not file an appeal within thirty days of the court's order. Appellant later filed a pro se "Verified Motion for Reconsideration, Motion to Vacate and Reinstate Order Denying Motion for Postconviction Relief, asserting that his delay in filing the appeal was due the failure of his appointed counsel. The trial court dismissed the motion. The court of appeals reversed, finding that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the motion as untimely. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals erred in its application of Parnell and Jones. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the county court declining to award prejudgment interest to the estate of Madeline A. Adlung (the Estate) following a remand to the county court for a redetermination of damages owed by Defendant, holding that there was no error in the district court's refusal to award interest on remand.Adelung's son, Kent Adelung, appealed from the decision of the county court finding him liable following an action for an equitable accounting sought by the Estate. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified. On remand, the Estate sought prejudgment interest. The county court denied the request. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the county court did not err in not applying prejudgment interest under Neb. Rev. Stat. 45-104 to the amount of the modified judgment on remand. View "In re Estate of Adelung" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the district court dismissing Millard Gutter Company's suit against Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance Company without prejudice, holding that the district court correctly dismissed the first-party bad faith claims for lack of standing.After a storm, Millard Gutter obtained assignments of the right to insurance proceeds due under policies of Shelter. Thereafter, Millard filed suit against Shelter in its own name, as assignee, alleging breach of contract and first-party bad faith in failing to settle the claims. The district court granted Shelter's motion to dismiss, concluding that the complaint did not contain sufficient factual allegations to establish standing to assert first-party bad faith claims. The court of appeals reversed in part, concluding that Millard Gutter had stated a plausible claim for first-party bad faith. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that Millard Gutter lacked standing to prosecute the policyholders' tort actions for first-party bad faith against Shelter. View "Millard Gutter Co. v. Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing this action brought by Millard Gutter Company against Shelter Mutual Insurance Company seeking to recover damages for breach of insurance contracts and for first-party bad faith, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that Millard Gutter did not have standing to assert first-party bad faith claims against Shelter.After a storm, Millard Gutter obtained assignments from various policyholders of Shelter. Thereafter, Millard filed suit against Shelter in its own name, as assignee, alleging breach of contract and first-party bad faith in failing to settle the claims. The district court granted Shelter's motion to dismiss, concluding that the complaint did not contain sufficient factual allegations to establish standing to assert first-party bad faith claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Millard Gutter lacked standing to prosecute the policyholders' tort actions for first-party bad faith against Shelter. View "Millard Gutter Co. v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

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