Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the marital dissolution decree entered by the district court in this case, holding that the court's ultimate division was reasonable and fair.In the marital dissolution decree dissolving the marriage of Marcia Kauk and Randall Kauk, the district court divided the property and awarded Randall the marital homestead acreage. Marcia appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by failing to include certain contracts or payments in the marital estate, classifying four payments as payments of marital debts in valuing marital assets, and awarding the marital acreage to Randall. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its marital asset determinations and in awarding Randall the marital acreage. View "Kauk v. Kauk" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Defendant's motion for a new trial filed after Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder, use of a firearm to commit a felony, and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person were upheld on direct appeal, holding that there was no error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding that the newly discovered testimony would not have produced a substantial difference in the result had it been offered and admitted at trial because it was not credible. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court affirming the determination of the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission (NADC) that Timothy Moore, while serving as the chair of the board of trustees for the village of Madrid, Nebraska, violated the Nebraska Political Accountability and Disclosure Act (NPADA), Neb. Rev. Stat. 49-1401 to 49-14,142, holding that there was no error.The NADC found that Moore violated the NPADA by having an interest in a contract with the Village Board by having an interest in a contract with the Village Board and failing to comply with the disclosure and abstention requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. 49-14,103.01(5). The district court affirmed. On appeal, Moore argued that the district court erred in finding that he had a sufficient interest in the contract with the Village Board to trigger the disclosure and abstention provisions of section 49-14.103.01(5). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Moore was not exempted from the disclosure and abstention requirements of section 49-14.013.01(5); and (2) the district court's judgment conformed to the law, was supported by competent evidence, and was neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable. View "Moore v. Nebraska Accountability & Disclosure Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of Thomas Pribil and William Kilzer (together, Appellees), the copersonal representatives of the estate of Charles E. Lakin and the cotrustees of the Charles E. Lakin Revocable Trust, holding that a dispute of material fact existed precluding summary judgment.Appellant in this case was the Charles E. Lakin Foundation, Inc. Appellant argued that Appellees improperly paid Pribil approximately $7 million after Lakin's death. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Pribil and Kilzer in their individual and representative capacities. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a dispute of material fact existed regarding the foundation's fudicairy duty claims against Appellees as copersonal representatives and cotrustees. View "In re Estate of Lakin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court overruling Appellant's second motion for discharge on statutory speedy trial grounds, holding that a defendant can permanently waive his or her statutory speedy trial rights even if he or she does not pursue an appeal.Appellant was charged with a crime and filed a motion for discharge on statutory speedy trial grounds. The district court overruled the motion, and Appellant did not appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a second motion for discharge. The district court overruled the motion, concluding that, by filing her first motion, Appellant permanently waived her statutory speedy trial rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a defendant permanently waives her speedy trial rights when an ultimately unsuccessful motion for discharge results in the continuance of a timely trial to a date outside of the statutory six-month period, calculated on the date the motion for discharge was filed. View "State v. Riessland" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court modifying the decree dissolving the marriage of Donald and Linda Eis, awarding Linda an increased equalization payment of $176,462, holding that there was no error.The district court's decree dissolved the marriage of the parties and divided their real and personal property. Linda later filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment and for a new trial. The district court entered a modified decree, awarding Linda an increased equalization payment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Donald's assignments of error were without merit. View "Eis v. Eis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court overruling Defendant's motion for absolute discharge, in which Defendant alleged violations of his constitutional and statutory rights to a speedy trial, holding that the district court did not err.On appeal from the denial of his motion for discharge, Defendant argued that the district court erred when it concluded that continuances ordered by the court in response to the COVID-19 pandemic were for good cause and therefore should be excluded from the calculation of the time for bringing him to trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that neither Defendant's statutory nor his federal or state constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated under the circumstances of this case. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court entering a decree dissolving the marriage of Steve Vanderveer and Joy Vanderveer, dividing their marital estate, awarding alimony to Joy, and deciding issues of custody, child support, and parenting time, holding that the court erred in part.In 2019, Joy filed a complaint for dissolution of her marriage to Steve, with whom she shared two children. After the court entered its dissolution decree both parties moved to alter or amend the decree. The court generally overruled the motions but did modify Steve's parenting time to better accommodate his work schedule. Both parties appealed. The Supreme Court reversed the decree only as it pertained to the calculation of child support and alimony and otherwise affirmed, holding that the lower court's calculation was erroneous, but in all other respects, the judgment was affirmed. View "Vanderveer v. Vanderveer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Appellants' appeal from the district court's dismissal of their appeal of a county board's grant of a conditional use permit (CUP) for the development of a commercial wind turbine operation, holding that this Court lacked jurisdiction to hear this appeal.In 2019, the Cherry County Board of Commissioners granted BSH Kilgore, LLC a CUP for the development of a commercial wind turbine operation in Cherry County. Thereafter, the Board granted BSH a four-year extension to build the operation. Appellants filed a "Complaint and Petition on Appeal" challenging the Board's action in granting the extension and asking for a trial de novo. The court dismissed Appellants' appeal, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction because the Board's decision was subject to review only through a petition in error. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellants' subsequent appeal, holding that, under the circumstances, the district court lacked jurisdiction, and therefore, this Court, too, lacked jurisdiction. View "Preserve of the Sandhills, LLC v. Cherry County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed for lack of a final, appealable order the probate court's denial of Appellant's "Verified Petition for Instruction" referencing Neb. Rev. Stat. 30-402, holding that the petition was not final and appealable.Appellant was a child of Rosa and Armengol Beltran, both deceased. After Armengol's death, a probate estate was opened. In an attempt to investigate his allegations that his sister and her husband failed to pay back loans owed to Rosa and Armengol Appellant served his brother-in-law with a deposition duces tecum requesting that he produce certain tax returns. When the request went unanswered Appellant filed his "Verified Petition for Instruction" asking that his sister appear and account for her actions in Rosa's estate. The probate court denied the petition for instruction. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal, holding that the probate court's order denying Appellant's petition did not affect Appellant's substantial rights and was therefore not final. View "In re Estate of Beltran" on Justia Law