Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Defendant's motion for postconviction relief, holding that the district court did not err in dismissing the motion for postconviction relief.Defendant was convicted of one count of theft by unlawful taking, one count of attempted theft by unlawful taking, and one count of abuse of a vulnerable adult. In his postconviction motion, Defendant alleged that his counsel was ineffective for failing to file a direct appeal when he was directed to do so. The district court denied the motion following a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly found that Defendant was not deficient in failing to file a direct appeal. View "State v. Combs" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court granted summary judgment to Defendants in this medical malpractice action, holding that the district court erred in excluding certain testimony.Joaquin Rojas was five years old when he suffered a brain injury. Plaintiffs, the child's parents, sued Dr. Corey Joekel and Joekel's employer, Nebraska Pediatric Practice, Inc., alleging that Joekel misdiagnosed and failed to treat Joaquin's condition. Based on Defendants' objection, the district court found inadmissible the expert testimony of Plaintiffs' key witness, Dr. Todd Lawrence. The district court then granted summary judgment for Defendants on the basis that, without Dr. Lawrence's testimony, Plaintiffs could not prove causation. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court erred in excluding Dr. Lawrence's testimony; and (2) because the testimony raised a genuine dispute about causation, summary judgment was unwarranted. View "Gonzales v. Nebraska Pediatric Practice" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment to Defendants in this wrongful death action, holding that the district court properly found that Defendants owed no legal duty under the circumstances.Mikael Loyd was a patient for six days at Lasting Hope Recovery Center, a mental health facility, where he was treated by a psychiatrist employed by the University of Nebraska Medical Center Physicians (UNMC Physicians). The day he was released Loyd killed his ex-girlfriend, Melissa Rodriguez. As special administrator's for Melissa's estate, her parents brought this action against Lasting Hope and UNMC Physicians for failing to warn and protect Melissa from Loyd. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants, concluding that they owed no legal duty to Melissa. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Melissa's death was not legally attributable to the breach of duty by Defendants because Loyd never communicated to them that he intended to harm Melissa. View "Rodriguez v. Lasting Hope Recovery Center" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the sentences imposed upon Defendant for his plea-based convictions for one Class IIA felony and three Class IV felonies, holding that Defendant's three sentences for Class IV felonies were plain error.Defendant was sentenced to consecutive terms of eight to sixteen years' imprisonment for the Class IIA felony and two years' imprisonment for each Class IV felony. On appeal, Defendant argued that the terms of his total sentence were excessive. The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence for Defendant's Class IIA felony but vacated the sentences imposed for his Class IV felonies and remanded the cause for resentencing, holding (1) Defendant's sentences were not excessive; but (2) the district court erred in rendering determinate sentences for each of Defendant's Class IV felonies. View "State v. Starks" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court dismissing Defendant's motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, holding that the district court did not err in dismissing the motion pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2102(2).Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and two counts of possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences. Defendant later filed a pro se motion for new trial. The district court dismissed the motion. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the district court erred when it failed to treat his motion as a postconviction motion and to consider his claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err when it considered Defendant's motion as a motion for new trial rather than considering it as a motion for postconviction relief; and (2) properly dismissed the motion without an evidentiary hearing. View "State v. Hill" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion for postconviction relief after an evidentiary hearing, holding that the district court did not err in finding that trial counsel was effective.In his motion for postconviction relief, Defendant argued that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to file a direct appeal at Defendant's direction. The district court denied the motion after holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Defendant did not direct trial counsel to file a direct appeal, and therefore, trial counsel was not deficient in allegedly not filing the appeal. View "State v. Russell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of possession of a controlled substance and two counts of carrying a concealed weapon, holding that there was no merit to Defendant's claims on appeal.On appeal, Defendant contended that the district court erred in overruling his motion to suppress, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of carrying a concealed weapon. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because there was no Fourth Amendment violation the court properly overruled Defendant's motion to suppress; (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict; and (3) trial counsel did not perform deficiently. View "State v. Lowman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding that State Farm Fire & Casualty Company had no obligation to defend or indemnify TFG Enterprises, LLC and its principal, Jeffrey Leonard, in a lawsuit, holding that the district court correctly concluded that State Farm had no potential liability under the insurance policy at issue.Jeffrey Barkhurst filed a lawsuit against TFG and Leonard (together, Defendants) asserting that they were liable for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and fraudulent concealment. State Farm agreed to defend Defendants in a reservation of rights and then filed this action seeking a declaration that it owed no coverage obligations to Defendants under the rental policy State Farm had issued to TFG. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Stat Farm, finding that State Farm had no coverage obligations. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the State Farm had no potential liability from the underlying lawsuit under the rental policy and thus had no duty to defend or indemnify Defendants. View "State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. TFG Enterprises, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentences in both a 2016 criminal case and a 2018 criminal case, holding that the district court did not err in its award of credit for time served.In the first criminal proceeding, commenced in 2016, Defendant entered pleas of guilty to one count of delivery of a controlled substance and one count of attempted delivery of a controlled substance. In 2018, in the second criminal proceeding, Defendant entered a plea of no contest to several offenses. Defendant appealed, challenging both sentences. The court of appeals found plain error and vacated several sentences imposed in both cases. On remand, the district court resentenced Defendant in both cases. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court failed to award him all of the credit for time served to which he was entitled for his sentences in the 2018 case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the district court's sentences. View "State v. Wines" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the district court's denials of Defendant's motions for mistrial and new trial, holding that the district court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing.Defendant was convicted of first degree sexual assault. Defendant filed motions for mistrial and new trial after the district court mistakenly failed to dismiss an alternate juror who remained with the jury during the first hour of deliberations. The district court denied the motions, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding that the district court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding the alternate juror participation in deliberations. View "State v. Madren" on Justia Law