Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Christopher Gillis and dismissing the claim brought by Lori and Robert Bogue that, as a result of negligence during a surgical procedure, Lori suffered injuries, holding that there was no error.The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Gillis on statute of limitations grounds, thus rejecting the Bogues' argument that under the continuous treatment doctrine the statute of limitations did not begin to run until the conclusion of Gillis' treatment of Lori approximately one year after the date of the surgery. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that the statute of limitations began to run on the date of the surgery. View "Bogue v. Gills" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of four counts of first degree sexual assault and his sentence of concurrent terms of five years' probation for each conviction, holding that there was no error.The State appealed, arguing that the district court erred by ordering excessively lenient sentences. Defendant cross-appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict, denying his motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and refusing his proposed jury instruction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in refusing Defendant's proposed jury instructions; (2) Defendant's sentences were not excessively lenient; and (3) there was no plain error in the district court's finding of prima facie evidence to deny Defendant's motion for a directed verdict. View "State v. Pauly" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Defendant's motion for postconviction relief, holding that the district court did not err in denying the motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing.Defendant was convicted of intentional child abuse resulting in death and was sentenced to imprisonment for seventy years to life. The conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. Defendant later filed her motion for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel. The district court concluded that the motion should be summarily dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it denied Defendant's postconviction claims without an evidentiary hearing. View "State v. Cullen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying a petition to set aside a conviction pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2264, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner's petition to set aside his conviction.In 1988, Petitioner was convicted of theft by receiving a stolen item and served his sentence. Petitioner was subsequently convicted and sentenced for several other crimes. Petitioner later filed this petition under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2264 to set aside his 1988 conviction. The district court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court's decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious, nor was the ruling based on impermissible bias. View "State v. Brunsen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the county court approving the schedule of distribution for the estate of Blain Larson, holding that the court erred in charging inheritance tax to the estate.Cindy Svoboda, the personal representative of Blain's estate, filed a formal petition for complete settlement after an informal testate proceeding and schedule of distribution. The court dismissed Matthew's objection to Cindy's proposal for distribution and approved the distribution. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the court erred in charging inheritance tax to the estate; and (2) this appeal was otherwise without merit. View "In re Estate of Larson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Freedom Healthcare, LLC in this medical malpractice action, holding that the record presented genuine issues of material fact that precluded summary judgment.In his complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Freedom Healthcare acted negligently when it performed hemocyte tissue autograft therapy on Plaintiff's knees, causing an infection requiring extensive treatment and hospitalization. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Freedom Healthcare, concluding that Plaintiff had failed to put forward competent expert testimony that Freedom Healthcare had breached the applicable standard of care. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court erred when it disregarded Plaintiff's expert's testimony and granted summary judgment on negligence; and (2) there existed an inference of negligence under the theory of res ipsa loquitur, presenting a question of material fact for the fact-finder. View "Evans v. Freedom Healthcare, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first degree murder, use of a firearm to commit a felony, and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, holding that Defendant failed to show that he was entitled to relief on his claims of error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in concluding that he was competent to stand trial and erred in admitting evidence that Defendant alleged was obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the district court's conclusion that Defendant was competent to stand trial; and (2) there was no merit to Defendant's second and third assignments of error. View "State v. Surber" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court sustaining the State's motion to dismiss this action brought by Defendant seeking DNA testing, holding that there was no error.In 1988, a jury convicted Defendant of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. In 2016, Defendant filed a motion requesting DNA testing on the victim's panties and on the steering wheel cover and floor mats of his car. The court sustained Defendant's request for DNA testing on those items and appointed counsel to represent him. After receiving the test results, the court denied relief under the DNA Testing Act and sustained the State's motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous, and it did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the State's motion to dismiss. View "State v. Buckman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court affirming the county court's denial of Defendant's motion for a return of his seized firearm, holding that the lower courts erred.Law enforcement officers seized Defendant's shotgun incident to an arrest. Following his successful completion of probation, Defendant filed a motion in the county court to return his shotgun. The county court denied the motion and ordered that the firearm be destroyed. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the State failed to meet its burden to show that Defendant's seized firearm was contraband or subject to forfeiture or that the government had some other continuing interest in the property. View "State v. Zimmer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding Defendant guilty of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute and sentencing him to a term of imprisonment, holding that there was no error.Defendant, a criminal defense attorney, was arrested following his purchase of cocaine from his client during the course of a controlled delivery set up by the Western Nebraska Intelligence and Narcotics Group. The district court found Defendant guilty of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute and overruled his motion for a new trial. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in finding sufficient evidence to convict Defendant; and (2) did not err in denying a new trial based on evidence that was insufficient to warrant a new trial. View "State v. Worthman" on Justia Law