Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court that granted summary judgment in favor of highway construction contractors and subcontractors (collectively, contractors) in this action alleging negligent maintenance of a construction site, holding that the contractors were entitled to summary judgment.Officer Curtis Blackbird died on duty when his police cruiser crashed into a parked crane and a portion of Highway 94 that was closed for construction. Plaintiff brought this action against the contractors, alleging negligence. The district court granted summary judgment for the contractors. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no triable issue of fact, and therefore, the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the contractors. View "Porter v. Knife River, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the district court, which established the paternity of Franklin M. as to the parties' two children and decided issues regarding custody and child support, holding that the district court erred as a matter of law when it applied an improper standard regarding removal.Franklin filed a complaint for paternity, custody, and support seeking to establish custody and support for two children he had with Lauren C. The district court found the Franklin and Lauren were the biological parents of the two children and decided issues regarding child support and custody. The Supreme Court remanded the cause, holding that the district court (1) applied an improper standard regarding removal; and (2) erred when it awarded shared legal and physical custody to Franklin. View "Franklin M. v. Lauren C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court concluding that the statute of limitations for negligence, as set forth in Neb. Stat. Ann. 25-207, begins to run on the date of a plaintiff's injury, holding that that court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of a tire repair company on the grounds that it was barred by the statute of limitations.A pickup truck owned by a construction company was involved in an accident that occurred when the right rear tire of the vehicle suffered a tread separation, resulting in a roll-over. Employees of the company that were passengers in the pickup truck at the time of the accident brought a negligence suit against the tire repair company that mounted the tire. The tire repair company moved for summary judgment based on the four-year statute of limitations. Because the action was brought more than four years after installation of the tire but within four years of the accident the district court granted the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Employees' cause of action for ordinary negligence accrued at the time of the accident and not at the time the tire company installed the tire. View "Susman v. Kearney Towing & Repair Center, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing the complaint brought by Noah's Ark Processors, LLC seeking a declaration that Noah's was not bound by a business agreement it entered into with UniFirst Corporation, holding that this appeal was without merit.After Noah's notified UniFirst that it was terminating their business agreement UniFirst commenced an arbitration proceeding seeking damages. In its complaint, Noah's sought a declaration that it was not bound by the agreement or the arbitration provision. The court dismissed the complaint and directed Noah's to participate in arbitration, determining that Noah's was equitably estopped from contesting that it was bound by the agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no merit to any of the arguments presented on appeal. View "Noah's Ark Processors v. UniFirst Corp." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and dismissed in part the order of the district court overruling Defendant's motion for absolute discharge, holding that the district court did not err in determining that Defendant was not entitled to absolute discharge on statutory speedy trial grounds.Defendant was charged with one count of first degree sexual assault. Defendant later filed a motion for absolute discharge, arguing that the State violated his statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial and that the district court erred by finding that continuances of trial in response to the COVID-19 pandemic were for good cause. The Supreme Court held (1) Defendant was not entitled to absolute discharge on statutory speedy trial grounds; and (2) this Court lacked appellate jurisdiction to review Defendant's claim that he was entitled to absolute discharge on constitutional speedy trial grounds. View "State v. Abernathy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for first degree murder, conspiracy to commit robbery, and use of a deadly weapon other than a firearm to commit a felony, holding that there was no basis for reversal.On appeal, Defendant argued that the information was insufficient to charge him with conspiracy, there was insufficient evidence to convict him, and the State erroneously impeached its own witness. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State satisfied the overt act requirement by alleging the substantive offense that was the object of the conspiracy as the overt act; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; and (3) even assuming the prosecution improperly impeached its witness, any error was harmless. View "State v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court that overruled Community First Bank's motion for summary judgment, sustaining First Central Bank McCook's motion for summary judgments and dismissing Community First's breach of contract claims, holding that genuine issues of fact existed precluding summary judgment.On appeal, Community First argued that the district court erred in determining that the contract between Community First and First Central was a participation agreement that did not create a debtor-creditor relationship between the two banks. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding (1) the contract between the parties was ambiguous; and (2) a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the provisions of the contract between the parties. View "Community First Bank v. First Central Bank McCook" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals vacating the order of the district court entering judgment on an arbitrator's award, holding that the court of appeals erred in finding the award ambiguous and ordering a remand to the arbitrator for further clarification.Signal 88, LLC brought this contract action against Lyconic, LLC. The district court ordered the dispute to be submitted to arbitration. The arbitrator issued a decision, after which Lyconic applied for an order confirming the arbitration award. The district court confirmed the award but, in the process, modified it. The court of appeals vacated the judgment, determining that the arbitrator's award was ambiguous. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court erred in modifying rather than confirming the award; and (2) the court of appeals erred in finding that the arbitrator's award was ambiguous. View "Signal 88, LLC v. Lyconic, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal from the judgment of the district court dismissing Appellants' appeal from a decision of the Madison County Board of Commissioners for lack of appellate jurisdiction, holding that this Court lacked jurisdiction.At issue in this appeal was the Madison County Board of Commissioners' approval of the Elkhorn Valley Sportsman Club's application for a conditional use permit. Appellants appealed the Board's decision to the district court, which dismissed the appeal for failure to pay the docket fee. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellants' subsequent appeal, holding that the district court did not err in dismissing this appeal from the Board's determination for lack of appellate jurisdiction. View "Kowalewski v. Madison County Board of Commissioners" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence but vacated the portion of the court's postconviction order prematurely addressing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, holding that Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims were either insufficiently raised or affirmatively refuted by the record.In pro se motions, Defendant alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and asked for appointment of counsel. After appointing counsel for Defendant the court granted as relief a new direct appeal. Defendant's notice of appeal, motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and poverty affidavit were filed within thirty days after the final order granting the new direct appeal. The property affidavit, however, had been executed by Defendant more than forty-five days before the filing of the notice of appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction but vacated the postconviction order addressing Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims unrelated to the request for relief of a new direct appeal, holding that, with one exception, Defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in the new direct appeal were either insufficiently raised or affirmatively refuted by the record. View "State v. Blake" on Justia Law