Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court dismissed in part and affirmed in part the interlocutory appeal brought in this negligence action, holding that the district court did not err in denying summary judgment based on the discretionary function exemption and that this Court lacked appellate jurisdiction over the remainder of this appeal.Plaintiff landowners alleged that an employee of the Sargent Irrigation District (SID), a political subdivision in Custer County, negligently mixed and over applied an herbicide mixture, causing damage to Plaintiffs' corn crop. SID moved for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiffs' claims fell within the discretionary function or duty exception to the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. 13-901 et seq. The court denied the motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court dismissed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying summary judgment based on the discretionary function exemption; and (2) the remainder of SID's assigned errors were not reviewable under Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-1902(1)(d). View "Clark v. Sargent Irrigation District" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court granting Defendant's motion for absolute discharge on speedy trial grounds, holding that the district court's order granting the motion was clearly erroneous.Defendant was charged with driving under the influence and other offenses and went to trial. A mistrial was granted because the prosecutor solicited improper testimony. Defendant subsequently filed a plea in bar, arguing that the State should not be able to retry the case. The district court denied the plea in bar, and the court of appeals affirmed. One week after a new trial was scheduled Defendant filed a motion for absolute discharge. The district court granted the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that time remained on Defendant's speedy trial clock, and therefore, Defendant's motion for absolute discharge was premature. View "State v. Bixby" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court renewing a domestic abuse protection order, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the district court's finding that renewal of the protection order was necessary to prevent future harm.The domestic abuse protection order at issue issued on March 18, 2020. The protected party was Margaret Garrison, and the order was against her former spouse, Logan Otto. On March 17, 2021 Garrison filed a petition to renew the domestic abuse and protection order. The court issued an ex parte renewal of the ex parte domestic protection order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court did not err in ultimately determining that renewal was justified. View "Garrison v. Otto" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's motion for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Appellant, a middle school teacher, per no contest to four counts of possession of child pornography in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-813.01. The court sentenced Appellant concurrent terms of ten to twenty years' imprisonment on each count and ordered Appellant to register as a sex offender. Appellant later sought postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that that the district court did not err in (1) not holding an evidentiary hearing on Appellant's claims; and (2) denying Appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. View "State v. Jaeger" on Justia Law

In this dispute involving a limited liability company (LLC) and its members the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court ordering an accounting, declaring the membership rights of the parties, quieting title to certain real estate, and establishing a resulting trust, holding that there was no merit to the assigned errors on appeal.On appeal, one member of the LLC asserted that the district court erred in denying a request for a jury trial on its legal counterclaims. The LLC cross-appealed, asserting that the trial court erred in denying a request to dissociate one of the members. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that all assignments of error were without merit. View "Schmid v. Simmons" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court reversing the judgment of the county court dismissing the complaint brought by North Star Mutual Insurance Company without prejudice, holding that North Star violated the rule against claim splitting when it filed a subrogation action in its own name, without joining its insured.Julie Blazer, who was insured with North Star, was driving her vehicle when she was struck by a pickup truck driven by Travis Stewart. After paying Balzer insurance benefits as a result of the accident North Star filed suit against Stewart. North Star brought the negligence action in its own name as a subrogee of Blazer but did not join Blazer as a party. The county court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of standing. The district court reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the allegations of the complaint were insufficient to demonstrate that North Star had standing to commence this action in its own name. View "North Star Mutual Insurance Co. v. Stewart" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed as modified the provisions of a district court order that found Mark Becher in contempt for failure to pay various expenses following his divorce from Sonia Becher, holding that the court's order is modified slightly but that Mark's remaining assignments of error were without merit.On appeal, Mark argued that the district court erred in (1) finding him in contempt for failure to pay for a portion of the children's 2016 medical expenses, real estate taxes, and a wilderness therapy program and requiring Mark to pay for his share of those expenses as part of a purge plan; (2) requiring him to pay for his share of the children's future medical expenses as part of the purge plan; (3) assessing interest; and (4) ordering him to pay Sonia's attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) the portion of the order regarding contempt findings and purge provisions related to the children's 2016 medical expenses and future medical expenses must be deleted; and (2) there was no merit to Mark's remaining assignments of error. View "Becher v. Becher" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the probate court appointing the decedent's mother as personal representative, ordering that letters of personal representative be issued to her, and issuing such letters even though the mother had not yet accepted the appointment, holding that the court's issuance of letters was an unauthorized action.More than three years following the decedent's death, the estate was opened for the purpose of serving a lawsuit against the decedent. The court appointed the mother as personal representative for the purpose of receiving service of the civil action and, that same day, issued letters of personal representative to the mother even though the mother had not accepted the appointment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the issuance of letters of personal representative was an unauthorized action without the appointee's qualification. View "In re Estate of Severson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Department of Motor Vehicles revoking Appellant's operator's license, holding that there was no error.Following a second hearing, the hearing officer recommended an order revoking Appellant's operator's license. The district court affirmed. On appeal, Appellant argued, among other things, that the district court erred in finding that the Department had jurisdiction to revoke Appellant's operator's license because the submitted report was not properly sworn to by the arresting officer. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in affirming the Department's revocation of Appellant's operator's license. View "Pope v. Department of Motor Vehicles" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences for first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon, not a firearm, to commit a felony, holding that there was no merit to Defendant's appeal.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in finding that he did not prove his insanity defense and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during the trial proceedings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in finding that Defendant was not insane at the time he killed the victim; and (2) trial counsel was not ineffective for stipulating to the underlying facts of the murder. View "State v. John" on Justia Law