Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for manslaughter, with reckless driving as the predicate unlawful act, holding that Defendant's claims on appeal were without merit.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed testimony from a sheriff's deputy who was dispatched to the scene of the accident that driving on the wrong side of the road could be a sign of reckless driving; (2) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction for manslaughter; and (3) the district court did not err when it did not give a lesser-included offense instruction on careless driving as a lesser-included offense because that instruction was not requested. View "State v. Cerros" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of in favor of Defendants and dismissing Plaintiffs' legal malpractice action on the grounds that Defendants did not breach any duty of care to Plaintiffs, holding that the district court did not err.In 2017, Plaintiffs, various liquor stores in Whiteclay, sought to renew multiple liquor licenses, but when the cause was appealed, the Supreme Court determined that it did not have jurisdiction. Plaintiffs then brought this action against their counsel, alleging legal malpractice. The district court granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that, as a matter of law, Defendants did not breach the applicable standard of care. View "Kozal v. Snyder" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 19 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., and in particular, ERISA's anti-alienation statute, shields a 401K plan administrator from state garnishment liability.Florence Lake Investments, LLC obtained a judgment against Jason Berg and his wife, Mary Berg, and made several collection efforts through postjudgment proceedings for garnishment or execution. Florence served garnishment interrogatories on Zoetis, Inc., as administrator of Berg's 401K account, but Zoetis did not disclose its role regarding Berg's 401K account. Florence then filed an application to determine garnishee liability against Zoetis. The court overruled the application, concluding that Zoetis was not liable for failing strictly to comply with the garnishment statutes by not disclosing Berg's 401K because ERISA governed the account, and therefore, the account could not be subject to garnishment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) ERISA's anti-alienation statute prevented Florence from acquiring Berg's right to the funds in his 401K account; and (2) therefore, Zoetis could not be held liable for failing to comply with the garnishment statutes. View "Florence Lake Investments v. Berg" on Justia Law

In this dissolution action governed bay a premarital agreement the Supreme Court affirmed the decree in all respects with the exception of the court's itemization of a truck as part of the marital estate, which the court vacated, holding that there was largely no error in the proceedings below.The district court imposed a constructive trust over certain limited liability companies titled solely in Wife's name so that, under the agreement, they were considered additions to the marital estate. On appeal, Husband argued, among other things, the court abused its discretion in allowing Wife to amend her pleadings to include the issue of the constructive trust and that the evidence did not support the constructive trust. The Supreme Court largely affirmed, holding (1) there was no error in the court's imposition of a constructive trust; (2) the truck owned at the time of filing should not have been calculated as part of the marital estate; and (3) Husband's remaining assignments of error were without merit. View "Simons v. Simons" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed in part, vacated in part, and reversed in part the judgment of the district court in favor of Plaintiffs in this lawsuit alleging negligence, unjust enrichment, and seeking a constructive trust, holding that the district court erred.In this lawsuit over the failure to change the beneficiary on the decedent's life insurance, Plaintiffs Michael Zook and Teresa Chramosta, as copersonal representatives of the estate of Robert Zook and in their individual capacities, and Robin Kuhlman, in her individual capacity, sued Jerry Zook, alleging unjust enrichment and seeking a constructive trust, and John Marshall, alleging negligence. The district court ruled in favor of Plaintiffs, found Defendants jointly and severally liable for $200,000, and imposed a constructive trust on the insurance proceeds in Jerry's possession. Marshall and Jerry appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed Marshall's appeal as a result of his death, reversed the district court's finding that Jerry was unjustly enriched and in imposing a constructive trust, and vacated the order imposing the constructive trust, holding that the district court erred on this issue. View "Zook v. Zook" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his no contest pleas to six felony charges, holding that there was no error.After the district court accepted Defendant's no contest pleas, Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his pleas, claiming that he wanted to withdraw his pleas so that he could obtain a second opinion as to his sanity at the time of the charged offenses. The district court denied the motion to withdraw. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by overruling Defendant's motion to withdraw his pleas; and (2) the record was insufficient to review Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. View "State v. Warner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the county court dismissing Appellant's petition for appointment of a guardian over her daughter, Appellee, holding that the county court did not err in excluding a report created by the guardian ad litem (GAL) from evidence.After Appellee was arrested and detained Appellant petitioned to have the Office of the Public Guardian appointed as guardian over Appellee. The GAL then filed its report regarding Appellee's medical history. After a trial, the county court granted Appellee's motion to dismiss, ruling that Appellant had failed to make a prima facie case for appointment of a permanent guardian. View "In re Guardianship of Jill G." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the county court finding that Appellants had committed breach of trust and had taken trust assets and ordering damages against Appellants by default judgment, holding that the findings of the county court were in conflict with the relief granted and did not conform to the law.After a trial, the court entered judgment against Appellants jointly and severally. Appellants filed a motion seeking a new trial for lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficiency of process, and insufficiency of service of process, which the trial court denied. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the county court's judgment was contrary to its own findings and that remand for further proceedings was required. View "In re Masek Family Trust" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of one count of first degree sexual assault and sentence of four to ten years' imprisonment, holding that each of Defendant's assignments of error was without merit.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion in certain evidentiary rulings, by denying his motion to continue, and in imposing an excessive sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in its challenged evidentiary rulings; (2) there was no abuse of discretion in the denial of Defendant's motion to continue; and (3) the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence of four to ten years' imprisonment on Defendant. View "State v. Abligo" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment to Keating, O'Gara, Nebved & Peter, LLC (collectively, KONP) after finding that Plaintiff's defamation claim was not supported by evidence of actual malice or special damages and that certain statements attribution to KONP were absolutely privileged, holding that there was no error.In a vote, Bellevue Police Officers Association (BPOA) members expressed no confidence in Plaintiff, former chief of police for Bellevue. KNOP, a law firm representing BPOA and BPOA members, drafted a press release issued by BPOA addressing allegations of misconduct against Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed suit against KNOP alleging, among other claims, that he was defamed and placed in a false light by the press release. The district court granted summary judgment for KNOP. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in (1) admitting certain testimony; (2) finding that Plaintiff's false light claim was subsumed; (3) concluding that Plaintiff's civil conspiracy claim failed; and (4) finding that certain statements were absolutely privileged. View "Elbert v. Young" on Justia Law