Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction Main St Properties LLC's (MSP) complaint seeking to enjoin a zoning ordinance adopted by the city council for the City of Bellevue, holding that the court erred in dismissing MSP's complaint.After MSP received a notice of zoning violation MSP appealed to the board of adjustment, which upheld the zoning violation. While MSP's appeal was pending, the city council approved an ordinance to rezone MSP's property. MSP then filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the City. The district court granted the City's motion to dismiss, concluding that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because MSP failed to file a petition in error. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the cause for further proceedings, holding that the complaint was sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. View "Main St Properties LLC v. City of Bellevue" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for two counts of child enticement and one count of tampering with a witness but vacated Defendant's sentence for witness tampering, holding that Defendant's sentence for witness tampering was error and that Defendant's remaining assignments of error were without merit.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) there was no plain error in the opening, closing, and rebuttal statements by the prosecutor; (2) the district court did not err by failing to instruct the jury on the absence of permission as an element of Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-311(2)(a); (3) Defendant's sentence for witness tampering was error, and the sentence should be vacated and the cause remanded for resentencing under a post-Neb. Laws, L.B. 605 law; and (4) there was no merit to Defendant's claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to dismiss on grounds that Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-311(1)(b) was unconstitutional as applied to Defendant. View "State v. Kipple" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Appellant's motion for postconviction relief, holding that because Appellant did not file his motion for postconviction relief within the relevant limitation period and could have done so, the district court did not err in denying relief.Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree and other crimes. More than three years after Appellant's direct appeal concluded Appellant moved for postconviction relief. The district court denied the motion as untimely filed. Appellant appealed, arguing that the relevant one-year limitation period contained in Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-3001(4) for filing a postconviction motion should be either be tolled during the pendency of his motion for new trial or should be equitably tolled. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 29-3001(4) did not provide for tolling under the circumstances; and (2) even if the doctrine of equitable tolling could apply in a postconviction proceeding, the circumstances of this case did not support its application. View "State v. Hill" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court that denied Christina C.'s application to modify child custody of her daughter, Daphnie F., holding that the district court's order did not follow the framework set forth in State on behalf of Tina K. v. Adam B., 948 N.W.2d 182 (Neb. 2020).Pursuant to a Colorado custody order, Daphnie was placed in the permanent custody of her paternal grandparents. Christina filed a motion to modify, arguing that she was a fit biological parent who had a right to custody of her child that was superior to that of the child's grandparents standing in loco parentis. The district court denied Christina's motion for new trial. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court's findings and reasoning were not sufficient under the correct standard set forth in State on behalf of Tina K. View "State ex rel. Daphnie F. v. Christina C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court that instructed a receiver to continue its management of agricultural land, in which Appellants, the testator's children, each held fractional life estates along with the testator's surviving spouse, holding that it was too late to attack the receiver's appointment.In 2019, the court appointed a receiver. In 2021, the court provided further instructions to the receiver. Appellants appealed, arguing that the district court appointed a receiver for 2021 without either party requesting the appointment and without deciding that a receiver was needed or necessary. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the receiver was appointed in 2019, not 2021, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in its instructions to the receiver. View "Seid v. Seid" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of attempted false information on a gun permit application, holding that neither of the two questions of law raised by Defendant had merit.On appeal, Defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction because the alleged false information was not about her name, address, date of birth, or country of citizenship and because she was confused about "informations" versus "complaints." The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime of attempted false information on a gun permit application. View "State v. Hofmann" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting the State's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's negligence claim based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the State was immune from Plaintiff's claims because they arose out of an assault.Plaintiff, an inmate, claimed that the State was negligent in its handling of security when it placed an inmate who had killed Plaintiff's brother in Plaintiff's housing unit. Plaintiff, afraid for his safety, assaulted the other inmate and was later himself stabbed in retaliation. Plaintiff's negligence claims were brought against the State pursuant to Nebraska's State Tort Claims Act (STCA), Neb. Rev. Stat. 81-8,209 to 81-8,235. The district court concluded that the State was immune under the intentional tort exception to the STCA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff's claim arose out of an assault and was therefore barred by the intentional tort exception. View "Williams v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court entering judgment upon the jury's general verdict in favor of Homeowners in their complaint against the builder of their house (Builder), holding that there was no error.Homeowners brought this suit alleging defects in the construction of their home and in the preparation of the lot it was built on. The jury found in a special verdict form that Homeowners' claims were not barred by the statute of limitations and rendered a general verdict in favor of Homeowners. Builder appealed, challenging the amount of damages and the court's statute of limitations rulings. Builder cross-appealed, challenging the damages award. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in refusing to determine the statute of limitations as a matter of law, in giving its instructions on the statute of limitations, or in failing to order remittitur or setoff of the damages award; and (2) did not err in excluding evidence of stigma damages. View "de Vries v. L & L Custom Builders, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court affirming a county court's conviction and sentence for bigamy, holding that a voidable marriage will support a bigamy prosecution.On appeal from his bigamy conviction, Defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction because his prior marriage was legally invalid where a Nebraska marriage license was obtained but the solemnization occurred in Texas. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's prior marriage, even if not statutorily valid, was at least a voidable marriage; (2) a voidable marriage is treated as valid until judicially declared otherwise and will support a bigamy prosecution; and (3) Defendant's conviction was supported by the evidence and was neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the county court denying Appellant's motion for absolute discharge under the speedy trial statutes, holding that there was no merit to Appellant's appeal.Appellant was charged with assault and battery under the Omaha Municipal Code. The district court continued Appellant's trial for good cause, citing administrative orders regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. Thereafter, Appellant filed a motion seeking absolute discharge on the ground that the State failed to bring him to trial within six months. The county court denied the motion. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in affirming the county court's order that found good cause for the continuances related to the pandemic. View "State v. Gnanaprakasam" on Justia Law