Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the findings entered by the district court upon the court's determination that this case had been improperly reinstated after the district court voluntarily dismissed their case without prejudice, holding that the district court erred in dismissing this case.Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants, asserting two counts of undue influence and one count of fraud in the inducement regarding the devise of certain real estate by the parties' mother. Plaintiffs later filed a voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice. The trial court effectively treated the dismissal as a motion dismissing without prejudice then granted the motion. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to vacate/reinstate, which the court sustained. The district court then dismissed the case based upon Plaintiffs' previously filed voluntary dismissal without prejudice. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, at the time Plaintiffs filed their voluntary dismissal, a final submission had occurred, divesting Plaintiffs of their statutory ability to voluntarily dismiss their case under Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-601. View "Schaaf v. Schaaf" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the the district court revoking Defendant's probation and sentencing him to three years of imprisonment, holding that the district court plainly erred in failing to impose mandatory post-release supervision as part of Defendant's total sentence.Defendant pleaded no contest to two counts of possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person and a third degree domestic assault. The district court sentenced Defendant to a thirty-month term of intensive supervised probation. Later, the State amended the motion to revoke probation. The district court revoked Defendant's probation but did not impose post-release supervision. The Supreme Court vacated the decision below and remanded the case with directions to modify the sentences, holding that the trial court committed plain error by failing to impose post-release supervision. View "State v. Roth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences resulting from his no contest pleas to charges of conspiracy to commit robbery and conspiracy to commit burglary, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.The district court accepted Defendant's no contest pleas to conspiracy to commit robbery and conspiracy to commit burglary and sentenced him to consecutive terms of imprisonment of twenty-six to thirty-two years for conspiracy to commit robbery and fourteen to twenty years for conspiracy to commit burglary. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not did abuse its discretion by placing undue weight on Defendant's criminal history or by failing to consider other relevant sentencing factors. View "State v. Thomas" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of first-degree sexual assault and his sentence of twenty-five to thirty years' imprisonment, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.Defendant's convictions stemmed from his conduct of exploiting his position as K.G.'s Olympic trainer and sexually penetrating her through coercion and deception. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction; (2) Defendant did not receive an excessive sentence; and (3) Defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel either lacked merit or could not be addressed on the record. View "State v. Anders" on Justia Law

In this insurance dispute, the Supreme Court affirmed in part, vacated in part and reversed in part the decision of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of North Star Mutual Insurance Company and against Old Mill Bulk Foods, holding that the district court erred by not granting summary judgment in favor of Old Mill.In July 2018 a fire destroyed the premises of a deli-grocery store. Old Mill elected to renovate another building in which to relocate is business and sought $159,879 under the "extra expense" provision of its insurance policy through North Star. North Star denied coverage and then filed this declaratory judgment to determine the parties' rights and obligations under the policy. The district court denied the extra expenses. The Supreme Court held that the district court (1) erred by not granting summary judgment in favor of Old Mill as to the claimed extra expenses; and (2) properly granted summary judgment with respect to the claim for a walk-in cooler. View "North Star Mutual Insurance Co. v. Miller" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of second degree murder and his sentence of imprisonment for a term of seventy-one years to life, holding that the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to establish the corpus delicti of homicide beyond a reasonable doubt.Defendant, the last person known to have seen Tyler Thomas alive, was charged with first-degree murder in relation to Thomas' disappearance. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of second degree murder. As his sole point on appeal, Defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish the corpus delicti of homicide. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no merit to Defendant's assigned error. View "State v. Keadle" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment the district court denying postconviction relief sought by Defendant without conducting an evidentiary hearing, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on Defendant's claims.Defendant was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death on each murder conviction. Defendant later filed what the district court referred to as his fifth postconviction motion, alleging (1) after the Legislature passed L.B. 268 abolishing the death penalty and when L.B. 268 was subsequently repeated by public referendum, his constitutional rights were violated; and (2) he was constitutionally ineligible for imposition of the death penalty under Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002). The court summarily denied relief on both claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly found that Defendant's Atkins claim was both procedurally barred and time barred; and (2) Defendant's L.B. 268 claim was meritless. View "State v. Lotter" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying postconviction relief sought by Appellant, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant later filed a timely pro se motion for postconviction relief alleging that his trial counsel had been ineffective in challenging the admissibility and weight of the State's DNA evidence presented at trial. The district court denied postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence demonstrated that defense counsel's performance was the product of reasonable trial strategy; and (2) Appellant failed to show that his trial counsel performed deficiently in their treatment of the probability statistic admitted at trial. View "State v. Ellis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding that the Nebraska Real Estate License Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. 81-885.01 to 81-885.55, barred Choice Homes, LLC's claims regarding a failed purchase agreement, holding that the district court did not err.Choice attempted to buy certain real estate from Owners in order to sell it to Buyers, but after the closing failed, Buyers purchased the property directly from Owners. Choice brought this action seeking damages related the purchase claims. Choice also asserted a defamation claim stemming from an online review posted by Buyers. The district court granted summary judgment against Choice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Act barred Choice's nondefamation claims; and (2) Choice was not defamed by the review at issue because it did not state or imply a false statement of fact. View "Choice Homes v. Donner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Public Service Commission (PSC), which approved the application of Black Hills Nebraska Gas, LLC seeking an enlargement or extension of its natural gas mains in Sarpy County, holding that there was no error.On appeal, the Metropolitan Utilities District (MUD) contended that Black Hills' application was contrary to a 2010 order that MUD argued conclusively established that it was in the public interest for MUD to provide natural gas service to the area at issue in the application. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding that the PSC had authority to determine the public interest with respect to the current application. View "In re Application No. P-12.32 of Black Hills Nebraska Gas, LLC" on Justia Law