Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Kevin L. Fair and his wife owned property in Scotts Bluff County, Nebraska, but failed to pay property taxes. The county treasurer sold a tax certificate to Continental Resources for the unpaid taxes. After three years, Continental notified the Fairs that they needed to redeem the property by paying the total amount due, which they did not. Consequently, Continental requested and received a tax deed from the county treasurer, transferring title to the property free of any encumbrances.The District Court for Scotts Bluff County granted summary judgment in favor of Continental Resources, rejecting Fair’s constitutional claims, including those under the Takings Clauses of the U.S. and Nebraska Constitutions. Fair argued that the issuance of the tax deed constituted a taking without just compensation. The district court found no merit in Fair’s claims and ruled in favor of Continental. Fair 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. Upon reconsideration, the Nebraska Supreme Court concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Continental on Fair’s takings claim. The court found that Fair had a protected property interest in the value of his property exceeding the tax debt and that Continental’s acquisition of the tax deed constituted a taking without just compensation. The court determined that Continental, as a state actor, could be liable for the taking.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment in all other respects but reversed the summary judgment in favor of Continental on the takings claim, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "Continental Resources v. Fair" on Justia Law

The case involves Jmaun D. Haynie, who was convicted of first-degree murder, second-degree assault, and two counts of use of a firearm to commit a felony. The incident occurred on September 12, 2021, when Haynie and another individual, Izayah Mapp, met Franco Vasquez and Haley Grim in a parking lot in Omaha, Nebraska, under the pretense of purchasing marijuana. During the encounter, both Haynie and Mapp pulled out guns, leading to the shooting of Vasquez and Grim. Vasquez died at the scene, while Grim survived. Evidence included text messages between Vasquez and Haynie, DNA linking Haynie to the vehicle, and social media messages from Haynie indicating his involvement.The District Court for Douglas County, Nebraska, presided over the trial. During the trial, there were two incidents involving the victim's family: an outburst by Vasquez's mother and a spectator wearing a T-shirt memorializing Vasquez. Haynie's counsel moved for a mistrial, arguing these incidents could prejudice the jury. The court denied the motion but took steps to prevent further incidents. The jury was instructed not to let sympathy or prejudice influence their verdict. Haynie was convicted on all counts and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder charge, along with additional consecutive sentences for the other charges.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a mistrial, as there was no evidence the jury was influenced by the incidents. The court also found no error in the jury instructions given, which followed the Nebraska Jury Instructions. The evidence was deemed sufficient to support Haynie's felony murder conviction, as the intent to rob Vasquez could be inferred from the circumstances. The court affirmed Haynie's convictions and sentences. View "State v. Haynie" on Justia Law

Ron Strahan stayed at a hotel owned by McCook Hotel Group, LLC, and slipped while using the shower tub in his room. He claimed the shower floor was not slip-resistant and thus presented an unreasonably dangerous condition. Strahan sued the hotel for negligence, seeking damages for his injuries.The District Court for Red Willow County granted summary judgment in favor of the hotel. The court found that Strahan could not establish a material element of his premises liability claim. Specifically, the court concluded that there was no evidence to support a reasonable inference that the shower tub without a slip-resistant floor was an unreasonably dangerous condition. The court also applied the open and obvious doctrine, reasoning that the hotel could not have expected Strahan to fail to protect himself from the open and obvious danger of a wet shower tub.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that Strahan failed to provide evidence showing that the shower tub presented an unreasonably dangerous condition. The court noted that the mere fact of slipping in a wet shower tub does not, by itself, establish negligence. Strahan did not present any evidence of industry standards, safety codes, or expert testimony to support his claim that the shower tub was unusually slippery or unsafe. Consequently, the court concluded that Strahan could not prove an essential element of his premises liability claim, and the hotel was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. View "Strahan v. McCook Hotel Group" on Justia Law

An inmate in the custody of the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (DCS) filed a negligence action against the State of Nebraska under the State Tort Claims Act (STCA). The inmate alleged that DCS failed to investigate his complaint that other inmates had stolen his property while he was in segregated confinement. He claimed that this failure to investigate resulted in the loss of his property, valued at $496.05, and caused him mental and emotional distress.The District Court for Lancaster County dismissed the case, finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court concluded that the inmate failed to plead a cognizable claim under the STCA because he did not show that the State owed him a legal duty under the relevant regulations. The court determined that the regulations cited by the inmate did not create a legal duty owed to him by the State.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the inmate disciplinary procedure statutes and regulations did not give rise to a tort duty of the State to investigate the alleged theft of the inmate's property. The court found that these regulations were designed to prescribe disciplinary procedures for inmates who allegedly engaged in misconduct, not to protect an inmate seeking an investigation into other inmates' alleged misconduct. As a result, the inmate failed to state a claim of negligence under the STCA, and the State's sovereign immunity was not waived. Therefore, the district court correctly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Ryan v. State" on Justia Law

The case involves William Zitterkopf, who was charged with unlawful distribution of an intimate image under Nebraska law. The charges stemmed from allegations that Zitterkopf recorded a sexual encounter with the victim, L.E., without her consent and later distributed a screenshot from the video to his ex-wife and L.E. The image showed L.E. nude from the waist down. Zitterkopf sent the image to L.E. with a message suggesting she confess to lying in an affidavit related to his divorce proceedings.The Scotts Bluff County District Court overruled Zitterkopf’s motion to quash the charge, in which he argued that the statute under which he was charged was unconstitutional. The court found that the statute was not overbroad and did not violate free speech protections because it targeted the nonconsensual nature of the disclosure rather than the content of the image. The court applied an intermediate level of scrutiny and concluded that the statute served an important governmental interest without burdening more speech than necessary.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and assumed for the sake of argument that the statute was content-based and subject to strict scrutiny. The court found that the statute served a compelling interest in protecting individual privacy and was narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The statute required a lack of consent both when the image was created and when it was distributed, and it required that the distribution be done knowingly and intentionally. The court concluded that the statute was not substantially overbroad and did not violate the First Amendment.The court also addressed Zitterkopf’s claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. It found that the record on direct appeal was sufficient to determine that Zitterkopf could not show prejudice from his counsel’s failure to object to certain testimony. However, the court found the record insufficient to review Zitterkopf’s claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to present certain testimony. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed Zitterkopf’s conviction. View "State v. Zitterkopf" on Justia Law

James M. Briggs, Jr. was charged with two counts of second-degree assault for attacking two employees at the Lincoln Correctional Center (LCC) on April 21, 2021. The charges were based on allegations that Briggs punched one employee, Parwiz Masoodi, multiple times and kicked another employee, Desaray Kerns, in the face while they were trying to restrain him. Both employees sustained bruising and received emergency medical care.The District Court for Lancaster County held a jury trial in May 2023, where both victims testified, and security footage of the incident was presented. Briggs moved to dismiss the charges at the close of the State’s evidence, arguing insufficient evidence, but the court denied the motion. The jury found Briggs guilty on both counts. At sentencing, the court found Briggs to be a habitual criminal and sentenced him to two consecutive terms of 10 to 12 years’ imprisonment, with a 10-year mandatory minimum for each count.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. Briggs argued that the jury instructions were incorrect because they did not include "unlawful" as an element of the offense and that his trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to this omission. The court found that the instructions, when read as a whole, correctly stated the law and encompassed all material elements of the charged crime. Therefore, Briggs' counsel was not deficient.Briggs also contended that his counsel was ineffective for not informing the court of amendments to the habitual criminal statute that reduced the mandatory minimum sentence. The court noted that the amendments were not in effect at the time of sentencing, so counsel was not deficient. However, applying the rule from State v. Randolph, the court vacated Briggs' sentences and remanded for resentencing under the amended statute, which mitigated the punishment. The convictions were affirmed, but the sentences were vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Briggs" on Justia Law

Marcus Brown was convicted of theft by unlawful taking after he took two scissor lifts from a Menards distribution center. Brown, who had previously worked as a contractor for Menards, claimed he intended to borrow the lifts for a personal construction project and return them. The prosecution argued that Brown intended to permanently deprive Menards of the lifts, as he did not obtain formal permission or inform anyone at the distribution center of his actions. The lifts were recovered only after Menards' investigation and the involvement of law enforcement.The Douglas County District Court denied Brown's motion for a directed verdict and the jury found him guilty. The court sentenced Brown to 90 days in county jail followed by three years of probation, during which he was ordered to pay restitution of approximately $11,000. Brown appealed, arguing insufficient evidence to support his conviction, improper restitution order, and ineffective assistance of counsel.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and found sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that Brown intended to deprive Menards of the lifts. However, the court identified plain error in the sentencing. The sentence imposed was a determinate sentence of 90 days in jail followed by probation, which is not authorized for a Class IIA felony. The court vacated Brown's sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. The court did not address Brown's arguments regarding the restitution order due to the vacated sentence. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel related to witness bias and failure to contact other witnesses were deemed insufficiently supported by the record for review on direct appeal. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

Dylan H. initiated a legal proceeding to establish paternity of a minor child, P.C., against Brooke C., the child's natural mother. Brooke's partner, Brandon B., intervened, claiming paternity based on a notarized acknowledgment he had signed. Dylan then filed a third-party complaint to disestablish Brandon's paternity, alleging fraud and material mistake of fact. The district court for Nemaha County bifurcated the issues and held an evidentiary hearing on the disestablishment claim. The court found fraud and material mistake of fact, disestablishing Brandon's paternity, and later denied a motion for a new trial.The district court's decision to disestablish Brandon's paternity was appealed by Brooke and Brandon. They also appealed the denial of their motion for a new trial. However, the district court had not resolved all claims in the case, including Dylan's action to establish paternity, custody, and support. The Nebraska Court of Appeals had previously dismissed an appeal related to genetic testing, determining it was not filed within the required timeframe and did not affect a substantial right.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the appeal and determined that the orders appealed from did not resolve all claims and involved multiple parties, thus implicating Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1315(1). This statute requires certification for an order to be appealable when it adjudicates fewer than all claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all parties. The district court had not provided such certification. Consequently, the Nebraska Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as the requirements for a final, appealable order under § 25-1315(1) were not met. View "Dylan H. v. Brooke" on Justia Law