Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Plaintiff's complaint seeking a declaration that Walnut Grove Hillside Condominium Regime No. 3, Inc. refused a reasonable accommodation under the federal Fair Housing Act and the Nebraska Fair Housing Act (collectively, FHA), holding that there was no error in the district court's decision.Plaintiff owned a condominium unit with the Walnut Grove subdivision. Plaintiff made a request to Walnut Grove to construct a fence through part of the common area behind her condominium for the purpose of allowing her daughter's emotional support dogs to safely spend time outside. Walnut Grove denied the request. Plaintiff then brought this complaint for declaratory judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff failed to meet her burden of proving that construction of the fence was necessary, and therefore, her claim for refusal of a reasonable accommodation under the FHA failed. View "Guenther v. Walnut Grove Hillside Condominium Regime No. 3, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of failure to appear, holding that there was no error in the admission of certain court records and that Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-2221 should not be used to calculate the three-day period in the failure to appear statute.At issue was whether the court records the State relied upon to prove Defendant's failure to appear were properly admitted and whether there was sufficient evidence to support his conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in overruling Defendant's objection to the admission of the court records; and (2) the State introduced sufficient evidence of all of the essential elements of a failure to appear offense. View "State v. Hassan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's entry of summary judgment concluding that Robert Bohling's father left a valid will, holding that there was no merit to any of Robert's assignments of error.When Willis Bohling (Bohling) died, he left a self-proved will. His daughter, Kimberly Bohling, initiated informal probate proceedings and was appointed the personal representative of Bohling's estate. Robert objected and filed a petition seeking dismissal of the informal probate application and requesting a determination of intestacy, a determination of heirs, and appointment of a special administrator. Kimberly moved for summary judgment, arguing that the will was valid and should be admitted to probate. The district court granted summary judgment for Kimberly. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Robert's arguments on appeal were without merit. View "Bohling v. Bohling" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court overruling Defendant's motion for absolute discharge on statutory speedy trial grounds, holding that Defendant's appeal was without merit.Defendant was charged with one count each of assault in the first degree, assault in the third degree, and disturbing the peace. Before trial commenced, Defendant filed a motion for absolute discharge on speedy trial grounds. The court denied the motion, concluding that Defendant prematurely filed his motion for absolute discharge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's judgment was not clearly erroneous. View "State v. Billingsley" on Justia Law

In this inverse condemnation action, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing the action on the pleadings, finding that the sanitary and improvement district (SID) lacked standing, holding that an SID is incapable of bringing an inverse condemnation action against the State.SID No. 67 of Sarpy County filed a petition for compensation in the county court for Sarpy County, claiming that the rerouting of access to the highway effected a damaging or taking of its property. The county court denied compensation. On review, SID 67 again alleged inverse condemnation. The district court dismissed the action on the pleadings for lack of standing, concluding that SID 67 was not a real party in interest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that SID 67 was not a "person" having "private property" and thus did not have standing to bring an inverse condemnation action against the State. View "Sanitary & Improvement District No. 67 v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the juvenile court denying the State's petition to terminate Mother's parental rights, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the State fell short of carrying its heavy burden for termination.In support of its petition to terminate Mother's parental rights, the State alleged four grounds for termination based on one proven instance of neglect, Mother's actions in escaping an abusive boyfriend and obtaining work to support her children, and the children's out-of-home placement following Mother's arrest. The juvenile court denied termination, concluding that the State failed clearly and convincingly to show that there was a statutory basis for termination or that termination was in the best interests of the children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the State failed to meet its heavy burden to clearly and convincingly proving Mother's unfitness or that termination of her parental rights was in her children's best interests. View "In re Interest of Mateo L." on Justia Law