Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Thomas Ridder and Donald Limpach and dismissing this negligence action filed by Beetye Davis, holding that both defendants were entitled to summary judgment.Davis filed an amended complaint alleging that Limpach negligently failed to put a vehicle in park, injuring Davis, and that Ridder, the owner of the vehicle, negligently failed to maintain the vehicle. The district court granted summary judgment to both defendants, concluding (1) Limpach was entitled to summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds; and (2) Ridder was entitled to summary judgment because Davis failed to submit evidence that Ridder negligently maintained the vehicle. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Limpach was entitled to summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds; and (2) Ridder was entitled to summary judgment. View "Davis v. Ridder" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Tax Commission affirming the deficiency assessment imposed by the Nebraska Department of Revenue upon a Nebraska corporation, which purchased an interest in an airplane from a Kansas seller without paying Nebraska sales or use taxes, holding that there was no error.The Department issued a notice of deficiency determination to the corporation in the total amount of $161,373. The corporation appealed, claiming that no taxes were owed because the airplane purchase was a "sale for resale." The Tax Commission found that the purchase was not a sale for resale and affirmed the Department's deficiency assessment. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court's finding that the corporation's airplane purchase did not qualify as a nontaxable sale for resale was supported by sufficient competent evidence and was not contrary to law. View "Big Blue Express v. Nebraska Department of Revenue" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the order of the district court declaring that the marriage between Steven Greg Meyer (Greg) and Molly Stacey, deceased, to be null and void and ordering Greg and his son, Mark Meyer, to execute instruments to relinquish certain property interests they obtained from Molly before her death, holding that Greg and Mark's arguments on appeal lacked merit.After Molly was diagnosed with cancer, Molly and Greg married. Just over one week later, Molly died intestate. Molly's adult children filed a declaratory judgment action against Greg and Mark seeking declarations that the property interest changes Molly made in favor of the Meyers and her marriage to Greg were void and invalid. The district court generally found in favor of Molly's children and the special administrator. Both parties appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) Greg and Mark's jurisdictional assignments of error lacked merit; (2) the district court correctly found that Molly lacked the requisite mental capacity and acted under undue influence; and (3) the district court erred in failing to rule that a boat Molly purchased and titled in Mark's name should be regarded as held in a resulting trust by Mark for Molly's benefit. View "Malousek v. Meyer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Father's motion to modify the custody and parenting time arrangements between the parties, holding that the district court neither abused its discretion in denying the requested modification or in allowing grandparent visitation.The district court previously modified the custody and parenting time provisions in the parties' dissolution decree upon finding that Mother was not properly caring for the parties' child and was using controlled substances. The order of modification granted custody to Father and required Mother's parenting time to be supervised by her parents. The next year, Father moved to modify the order yet again, requesting that Mother's supervised parenting time be indefinitely suspended due to her continued substance abuse. The district court denied the modification and, in a separate order, granted the maternal grandparents' complaint for grandparent visitation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Father's complaint to modify; and (2) the grandparent visitation order was not an abuse of discretion. View "Lindblad v. Lindblad" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's motion for absolute discharge, holding that Appellant's statutory speedy trial rights were not violated.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court impermissibly shifted the burden of proof during the hearing on his motion for absolute discharge and erred in finding good cause under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1207(4)(f) to exclude a period of time immediately following the appointment of replacement defense counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no plain error regarding either the order of proof or the burden of proof; and (2) there was no statutory speedy trial violation, and therefore, the district court properly overruled Appellant's motion. View "State v. Coomes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court dismissing Main St Properties LLC's (MSP) "Petition to Appeal Assessment of Bellevue Board of Equalization" for lack of jurisdiction, holding that Neb. Rev. Stat. 19-2422 authorized MSP's appeal of the resolution that levied a special assessment and placed a lien on MSP's property.MSP sought to appeal a City of Bellevue resolution that placed liens on property owned by MSP so as to collect costs that had been assessed for the demolition and removal of a structure on the property. In its petition, MSP argued that the resolution levied a "special assessment" pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 18-1722 and attempted its appeal under section 19-2422. The district court dismissed the appeal, determining that no special assessment was imposed and, therefore, section 19-2422 did not apply. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the City's resolution levied a special assessment against MSP under the authority of section 18-1722; and (2) therefore, section 19-2422 authorized MSP's appeal of the resolution. View "Main St Properties LLC v. City of Bellevue" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the compensation court requiring Defendants to modify an existing home or potentially build a unit to meet the accessibility requirements of Allen Michael Lewis, holding that the compensation court's order did not provide a meaningful basis for appellate review.Lewis was injured in the course of his employment with MBC, resulting in the amputation of his left leg. Because of his restrictions, Lewis sought modification of his rental property from MBC and filed a motion to compel that would direct MBC to build the accessible house for his use. The compensation court found that Lewis' proposed house was not reasonable and necessary but directed MBC either to find an existing home to which modifications could be made or, alternatively, to provide housing for Lewis by either building or purchasing an accessible home for him. The Supreme Court vacated the order below, holding (1) the compensation court's order was confusing and the undertakings of each party were unclear; and (2) this case is remanded for the compensation court to enter an order in compliance with Workers' Comp. Ct. R. Of Proc. 11. View "Lewis v. MBC Construction Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court affirming the sanction imposed upon Thomas B. Whittle, M.D. for committing acts of unprofessional conduct, holding that none of Whittle's claims on appeal had merit.The State brought disciplinary charges against Whittle on the grounds that he practiced medicine in a pattern of incompetence and negligence and that his conduct was unprofessional. The Division of Public Health for the Department of Health and Human Services suspended Whittle's license to practice medicine for six months after holding a hearing. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Department possessed authority under Neb. Rev. Stat. 38-179(15) to define acts of unprofessional conduct, and Neb. Rev. Stat. 010.02(32) did not impermissibly modify, alter, or enlarge portions of its enabling statute; (2) the evidence supported the district court's conclusion that Whittle's actions warranted the discipline imposed; and (3) Whittle's remaining claims were without merit. View "Whittle v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court finding that Lola Urban had superior title to certain real estate and was entitled to have her son, Richard Urban, ejected from the property, holding that the district court erred.Francis and Lola Urban sold a quarter section of land to Richard by means of an installment land contract. Years later, Lola, as trustee of Francis' testamentary trust and as an individual, filed suit against Richard seeking to compel Richard to specifically perform his obligations under the contract. Lola requested that if Richard failed to pay the balance owed the property be foreclosed. Lola then amended her complaint to assert an alternative claim for ejection of Richard from the property. The district court found that Lola was barred from foreclosing on the property under the applicable statute of limitations but was entitled to have Richard ejected from the property. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute of limitations and the doctrine of adverse possession precluded the use of ejectment. View "Beckner v. Urban" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for second degree assault, holding that the district court's sentence of nineteen to twenty years' imprisonment was not excessive.At the sentencing hearing, the district court noted Defendant's prior criminal history and a probation officer's perception that Defendant showed no remorse. The court sentenced him to nineteen to twenty years' imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence because it failed adequately to consider mitigating factors. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence of nineteen to twenty years' imprisonment in this matter. View "State v. Greer" on Justia Law