Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Collins filed an application for informal probate of the decedent's will. The submitted will disinherited the decedent’s children, devised most of the estate to Collins, and appointed Collins as personal representative. The will was dated January 27, 2021; the decedent died on January 31. The county court granted Collins’ application, The children objected, alleging that the decedent lacked testamentary capacity and the decedent was under undue influence when he executed the 2021 will. They offered for formal probate a will, executed in 2002, under which they were to inherit the residue of the decedent’s estate. They sought an order restraining Collins from acting as personal representative.Before the court ruled on the requests, the children filed a notice of transfer to the district court. The county court found that the children’s petition commenced a formal testacy proceeding and that their notice of transfer effectuated a transfer of jurisdiction so that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the requests for a special administrator and a restraining order. The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed. The fact that a district court has obtained, via the transfer of the will contest, “jurisdiction over the proceeding on the contest” does not divest the county court of its original jurisdiction in probate to protect the estate during the pendency of that will contest by considering the merits of a petition for a special administrator and request for a restraining order on the personal representative. View "In re Estate of Anderson" on Justia Law

Z.H. completed law school in 2000. In 2019 and 2020, Z.H. took the Nebraska bar examination but did not pass. Because of rheumatoid arthritis that limits her mobility, Z.H. received accommodations, but not all of the accommodations she requested. In 2021 she was required to appear in person while other applicants took the exam remotely. Z.H. averred that during the 2021 examination, which she ultimately passed, she experienced extreme mental stress, anxiety, and physical pain as well as additional scrutiny.She requested specific accommodations should she have to retake the exam and damages. Her affidavit set forth expenses to include $5,906.25 in attorney fees and mailing costs and $450,000 in damages for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101, the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 701, and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Z.H. sought reimbursement for hotel costs and other expenses and punitive damages. The Nebraska Supreme Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the action was not authorized by rule or statute. View "In re Appeal of Z.H." on Justia Law

Kearney Officer Newell, dispatched to an apartment, spoke with J.S., who reported that upon leaving his garden-level apartment, he saw a man crouched down by a window to the apartment’s bathroom. J.S. did not mention seeing the individual holding a cell phone. J.S. showed Newell the path the person took in leaving. Approximately half a block from the apartment J.S. discovered a cell phone and handed it to Newell. Newell completed an affidavit. asking the judge for permission to examine the cell phone for evidence of the crime of unlawful intrusion on September 25, 2018. The search conducted pursuant to the warrant revealed multiple images of women in various states of undress and led to McGovern. Based on what was found, a second warrant was obtained in another jurisdiction. McGovern was convicted of sexual assault in the first degree, sexual assault in the third degree, and recording a person in a state of undress.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed. The first search warrant was supported by probable cause and was sufficiently particular and because law enforcement reasonably saw evidence of a different crime during the initial search, the court did not err in overruling a suppression motion. The overall sentencing was not an abuse of discretion. View "State v. McGovern" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and dismissed in part an order of the district court affirming the county court's decision to overrule Defendant's motion for absolute discharge on statutory and constitutional speedy trial grounds, holding that this Court lacked appellate jurisdiction to review one claim.After he was arrested Defendant filed a motion for absolute discharge alleging violations of his statutory and constitutional speedy trial rights. The county court overruled the motion, finding that Defendant's previously-filed pretrial motions had stopped the speedy trial clock. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and dismissed in part, holding (1) the State met its burden of proving that time periods were excludable under Neb. Gen. Laws 29-1207(4); and (2) this Court lacked appellate jurisdiction to review Defendant's claim that he was entitled to absolute discharge under constitutional speedy trial grounds. View "State v. Webb" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the the district court's grant of summary judgment against the owner of a premanufactured grain bin that collapsed and dismissal of other claims, holding that there was no merit to any of the owner's assigned errors.The owner of the grain bin filed this lawsuit seeking damages from multiple defendants involved in designing, manufacturing, and constructing the grain storage facility, alleging various claims. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly applied the correct statutes of repose to the owner's various claims. View "Ag Valley Co-operative v. Servinsky Engineering, PLLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the district court dismissing Appellant's petition to establish grandparent visitation with her minor grandchildren for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the district court erred in determining that it lacked jurisdiction.The biological grandmother of the children at issue in this case, filed a petition to establish grandparent visitation with her minor grandchildren. The parents filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the petition because allowing the grandmother visitation would infringe on the parents' fundamental liberty interest in raising their children. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding that the district court erred in concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. View "Kane v. Kane" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of first degree sexual assault, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in finding sufficient evidence to find him guilty and instructing the jury as to the definition of sexual penetration. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no merit to Defendant's sufficiency of the evidence argument; and (2) there was no error in the court's instructions to the jury regarding the term "penetration." View "State v. Garcia" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court granting Barbara Humphrey's motion for summary judgment as to partition of certain property and denying both parties' motions for summary judgment as to unjust enrichment, holding that the court erred in granting summary judgment as to Barbara's partition claim.Donald Humphrey and Edward Smith purchased a home together, and Donald paid a portion of the purchase price. The parties agreed this was to be a loan and memorialized their understanding in a loan agreement wherein they agreed that Donald would remove his name from the property's ownership when the loan was repaid. After Donald died, Barbara, his wife, brought a complaint for partition of the property, arguing that she and Smith were tenants in common. Smith counterclaimed for unjust enrichment, asserting that Donald forgave the remainder of the loan before he died, leaving Smith as the property's sole owner. The district court granted summary judgment for Barbara as to partition and denied summary judgment on all other claims. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Barbara on the issue of partition. View "Humphrey v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court that $18,000 in cash be forfeited to the State after finding that the State had shown by clear and convincing evidence that the cash was used or intended to be used to facilitate a violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, holding that there was no error.On appeal, Christopher Bouldin, from whom the cash was seized by a law enforcement officer during a traffic stop, argued that the district court applied an incorrect standard of proof and that there was insufficient evidence to order the forfeiture. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court applied the standard of proof required by the governing statute; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the district court's finding that the $18,000 was subject to forfeiture. View "State v. $18,000" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court affirming the determination of the Nebraska Department of Labor that Appellant was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits for fourteen weeks after his employment at JBS Swift Beef ended because he was discharged for misconduct, holding that remand was required.In his appeal to the district court, Appellant argued that the appeal tribunal erred in finding that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he was discharged for misconduct and in thus imposing a fourteen-week benefit disqualification upon him. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that there was no competent evidence to support the district court's finding that JBS met its burden to prove Appellant was discharged for misconduct. View "Badawi v. Albin" on Justia Law