Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the compensation court denying James Spratt's request seeking to modify his workers' compensation award, holding that the compensation court erred in holding that it lacked the statutory to do so and, alternatively, that the principal of finality precluded relief.Spratt injured his back while working for Crete Carrier Corporation and received a workers' compensation award granting medical rehabilitation services for his lumbar back. Spratt subsequently requested that the compensation court modify the original award so that he may receive thoracic back treatment. The compensation court denied Spratt's request for modification. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the compensation court erred in concluding that it lacked the power to modify the original award to treat Spratt's thoracic back; and (2) modification was not precluded by the law-of-the-case doctrine. View "Spratt v. Crete Carrier Corp." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the county court denying Defendant's motion seeking to vacate and correct his sentence for driving under the influence, which Defendant received almost nine years earlier, holding that the county court did not err.In 2008, Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol, third offense. In 2010, Defendant's probation was revoked, and he was resentenced to a jail term, a fine, and a fifteen-year license revocation. No appeal was taken. Nine years later, Defendant filed a motion to reopen the case and vacate the previous sentencing order, asserting that the sentencing order improperly failed to include an order pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-6,197.01. The county court denied the motion, and the district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly concluded that nine years after the judgment and conviction became final the county court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate Defendant's motion to vacate and correct his sentence. View "State v. McAleese" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding Defendant guilty of possession of a controlled substance and finding him to be a habitual criminal, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.Defendant was arrested after a police officer discovered methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia in Defendant's vehicle and his person. After his conviction, Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress and finding him to be a habitual criminal, and asserting that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion and that Defendant's ineffective assistance claims were either without merit or not alleged with sufficient particularity. View "State v. Drake" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for terroristic threats, assault in the third degree, and intimidation by phone call, holding that there was no merit to Defendant's arguments that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions.Defendant's convictions stemmed from events that occurred on September 6, 2019 pertaining to three children Defendant shared with his ex-wife. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in overruling the motion to dismiss the charges on the grounds of insufficient evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Bryant" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment for Continental Resources in this quiet title action against Kevin and Terry Fair, holding that the district court did not err in granting Continental's summary judgment motion to quiet title.At issue on appeal was the constitutionality of the statute that authorize the process allowing the county in which a property is located to sell a tax certificate for the property to a private party if the property owner fails to pay property taxes. If the owner fails to pay the taxes owed after a period of time and the tax certificate purchaser complies with certain requirements, the purchaser can obtain a deed to the property free of encumbrances. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Nebraska's tax certificate sale statutes are not unconstitutional in the manner assigned by Fair. View "Continental Resources v. Fair" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Objectors' application for a special proceeding relating to elections in the district court for Lancaster County, request for a summary order removing Adam Morfeld's name from the May 2022 primary election ballot under Neb. Rev. Stat. 32-624, and requests to conduct discovery and expand the record, holding that there was no error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Morfeld satisfied the statutory qualifications to seek nomination for the office of county attorney; and (2) there was no abuse of discretion by the district court in denying discovery. View "Nebraska Republican Party v. Shively" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and dismissed in part the order of the district court overruling Appellant's motion for absolute discharge wherein Appellant alleged violations of his statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial, holding Appellant was not entitled to relief.Appellant was charged with domestic violence assault in the third degree and strangulation. After several continuances, Appellant filed a motion to discharge on speedy trial grounds. The district court overruled the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and dismissed in part, holding (1) the district court's order was sufficiently specific regarding the causes of the delay and the period of delay; (2) the district court's finding that Appellant's case should not be dismissed on statutory speedy trial grounds was not clearly erroneous; and (3) this Court lacked appellate jurisdiction to review Moody’s claim that he was entitled to absolute discharge on constitutional speedy trial grounds. View "State v. Moody" on Justia Law

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