Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court, sitting as an appellate court, affirming the county court's denial of Defendant's motion for absolute discharge based on her statutory right to a speedy trial, holding that the county court did not clearly err in finding good cause for the judicial delays.Defendant was charged with two counts of misdemeanor domestic violence assault in the third degree. Defendant requested a jury trial. Defendant later filed a motion for absolute discharge, claiming violations of her statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial. The county court denied the motion. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly affirmed the county court's order denying Defendant's motion for absolute discharge under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1207 because the State failed to meet its burden to show that good cause existed sufficient to toll Defendant's speedy trial rights. View "State v. Chase" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Neb. Rev. Stat. 44-3,128.01, which grants an insurer the right of subrogation, does not preempt a common-law rule, known as the common fund doctrine, allowing an attorney to collect a pro rata share of his or her fees from an insurer.A law firm sued an insurer in county county, alleging that its work in obtaining a recovery on behalf of the law firm's client, including the insurer's subrogation interest in the claim, created a common fund, that the insurer benefited from the law firm's work, and that a fair attorney fee under Nebraska common law was one-third of the amount recovered per the law firm's agreement with its client. The county court sustained the law firm's motion, and the district court and court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err in failing to determine that the common fund doctrine was preempted by section 44-3-128. View "Hauptman, O'Brien, Wolf & Lathrop, P.C. v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice or for absolute discharge based on late disclosures of discovery information resulting in delays Defendant argued implicated his speedy trial rights and denying Defendant's motion to suppress, holding that there was no error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred when it denied his motion to suppress the fruits of the search of his residence, two cell phones taken from his person incident to his unlawful arrest, information obtained from a search of the contents of his two cell phones, cell records and cell site location information from the cell phone service providers. Defendant also challenged the denial of his motion to dismiss and motion for complete discharge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no merit to Defendant's assignments of error. View "State v. Short" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court overruling Defendant's motion for postconviction relief, holding that Defendant failed to prove that he suffered prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).After a second trial, Defendant was convicted of three counts of first degree murder and related crimes. In his pro se motion for postconviction relief, Defendant argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel by his counsel's failure to call impeachment witnesses. The district court denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to assert an ineffective assistance of counsel claim that warranted an evidentiary hearing. View "State v. Britt" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the county court denying petitions to recover fees and expenses incurred by a nominated personal representative and his attorney who unsuccessfully probated a will that the attorney drafted, holding that the court's reasons for denying fees and expenses for services after the decedent's death were legally erroneous.The Supreme Court reversed the county court's denial of compensation for actions taken after the decedent's death and remanded the case, holding (1) the county court did not err in finding that claims for fees and expenses from the estate for services performed by the attorney prior to the decedent's death were time barred; (2) the court's reasons for denying expenses and fees for services after the decedent's death were erroneous; and (3) the remaining requests for relief were not supported by a discernible legal argument. View "In re Estate of Giventer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying West Corporation's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and motion for a new trial after the jury found that West breached contracts with a former employee, Kenneth Marr, holding that there was no reversible error on the part of the district court.A few months after his resignation from West, Marr brought this action alleging that he was contractually entitled to compensation that West had refused to pay. The jury entered a verdict in favor of Marr, finding West liable for damages in the amount of $400,540. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no prejudicial error in the district court's evidentiary rulings and that the district court did not err in denying West's motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. View "Marr v. West Corp." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court determining that Nebraska statutes authorizing the Governor to appoint election commissioners in Lancaster, Douglas and Sarpy Counties were constitutional, holding that the arguments of the Attorney General on appeal were without merit.On appeal, the Attorney General argued that election commissioners and their chief deputies are county officers and thus, under Neb. Const. art. IX, 4, the election commissioners and their chief deputies must be elected. The district court entered judgment against the Attorney General, concluding that election commissioners are not "county officers" under article IX, 4. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Legislature has determined that election commissioners and chief deputies are not county officers, and that determination does not fall outside of the Legislature's broad discretion. View "State ex rel. Peterson v. Shively" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the judgment of the district court dismissing Plaintiffs' claims against the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) alleging violations of the Health Care Facility Licensure Act (HCFLA), Neb. Rev. Stat. 71-401 to -476, and granting summary judgment to DHHS on the claims alleging violations of the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act (NFEPA), Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-1101 to -1125, holding that there was no error.Plaintiffs were two former employees of a state hospital who highlighted inadequate record keeping for hospital psychiatrists. Plaintiffs were subsequently fired. Plaintiffs brought this action alleging violations of the NFEPA and the HCFLA. The district court dismissed Plaintiffs' claims based on the HCFLA on sovereign immunity grounds and then granted summary judgment in favor of DHHS on the NFEPA claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Plaintiffs did not establish that they engaged in protected activity, the district court properly entered summary judgment against them on the NFEPA claims; and (2) because the State did not waive its sovereign immunity to suit under the HCFLA, the court properly dismissed those claims. View "Baker-Heser v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court dismissing this lawsuit on the grounds that Defendants were not timely served, holding that a defendant's filing of an "Appearance of Counsel" does not constitute a voluntary appearance that relieves a plaintiff of the ordinary obligation to serve the defendant with the lawsuit.Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants alleging that Defendants provided Plaintiff with incorrect information regarding the income tax consequences of a sale of land. Attorneys for Defendants filed a document entitled "Appearance of Counsel," after which there was no activity in the case for nearly a year. The district court dismissed the case on the grounds that Plaintiff had not timely served Defendants. Plaintiff filed a motion to reinstate the case, asserting that the Appearance of Counsel was equivalent to service under Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-516.01(1). The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Appearance of Counsel was not a voluntary appearance and that Defendants were not timely served. View "Stone Land & Livestock Co. v. HBE, LLP" on Justia Law

In this dispute between competitors in the bingo hall gaming industry that sued each other for breach of contract, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the trial court, holding that the court should not have awarded postjudgment interest in favor of VKGS, LLC.After a trial on VKGS's claims, the jury found Planet Bingo, LLC and its wholly owned subsidiary, Melange Computer Services, Inc. (together, Planet Bingo), liable for $558,405. After a separate trial on Planet Bingo's claims, the jury found VKGS liable for $2,990,000. The trial court awarded VKGS postjudgment interest from the time of the first verdict and then entered judgment in favor of Planet Bingo, while offsetting VKGS' award. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) did not err in bifurcating trial of the parties' claims; (2) did not err in declining to dismiss Planet Bingo's claims, in refusing VKGS' evidence, or in declining to give VKGS' jury instructions; and (3) erred in awarding VKGS postjudgment interest. View "VKGS, LLC v. Planet Bingo, LLC" on Justia Law