Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying a political subdivision's motion for summary judgment in this subrogation action, holding that summary judgment was improper.Great Northern Insurance Company filed this subrogation action seeking compensation from Transit Authority of the City of Omaha, d/b/a Metro Area Transit, under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. 13-901 et seq., for funds paid on an insurance claim on behalf of its insured. Metro filed a motion for summary judgment. The district court denied the motion, finding that Metro had failed to demonstrate that there was no genuine issue concerning Great Northern's affirmative defense of equitable estoppel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that summary judgment was not proper under the facts of this case. View "Great Northern Insurance Co. v. Transit Authority of Omaha" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the court of appeals dismissing for lack of jurisdiction Steven Clason's appeal of a district court order denying his request to quiet title to certain property in his name, holding that the order was not appealable because not all counterclaims were resolved.Clason owned property that was sold to Producers Livestock Credit Corporation (PLCC) after Clason defaulted on his loan payments. Clason refused to surrender the property to PLCC and filed a complaint alleging that the purported sale of the property to PLCC was void. Clason requested that the court enter an order quieting title to the property in him. PLCC filed a counterclaim and requested that Clason's complaint be dismissed. The district court entered judgment in favor of PLCC and against Clason, dismissed the case with prejudice, and ordered that title be quieted in PLCC. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court's order was not appealable because not all of PLCC's counterclaims were resolved. View "Clason v. LOL Investments, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court affirming the findings of the county court in this division fence dispute, holding that the county court order was a conditional order from which no appeal could be taken, and therefore, the district court and this Court did not acquire jurisdiction.The parties in this case owned adjacent properties on which cattle grazed. Plaintiffs filed a fence dispute complaint in the county court seeking contribution in connection with the planned construction of a fence on a portion of the boundary between the parties' property. The county court ordered Defendants to perform or monetarily contribute to the construction of a division fence between the properties. The district court affirmed the county court's findings and remanded the matter for further proceedings on the issue of contribution. The Supreme Court dismissed Defendants' appeal, holding that the county court's order was a conditional order and, as such, was not appealable to the district court. View "Evert v. Srb" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court determining the fair value of certain shares to be purchased by a corporation to be $467 million and awarding the petitioning shareholder $256 million in prejudgment interest, holding that this appeal was without merit.The successor president and chief executive officer (CEO) of Streck, Inc. implemented a sales process that failed to produce an offer acceptable to the majority shareholder, and the corporation was not sold. The majority shareholder sued Streck and its president and CEO, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and shareholder oppression. Streck opted to purchase the petitioning shareholder's shares and, after a trial, the court determined the fair value of the shares and awarded the petitioning shareholder prejudgment interest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Streck's appeal was without merit. View "Wayne L. Ryan Revocable Trust v. Ryan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's motion for absolute discharge, holding that Appellant's assignment of error was both reviewable and meritorious.On appeal from the denial of his motion for absolute discharge, Appellant argued that he was not tried within the statutory six-month period under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1207 and that the State failed to prove that the delay was the result of any properly excluded period. The Supreme Court agreed and remanded the cause with directions to grant Appellant's motion for absolute discharge, holding that Appellant was not tried within six months of the complaint being filed and that the State failed to meet its burden of proving excludable time. View "State v. Jennings" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of first degree murder and use of a firearm to commit a felony, holding that the trial court did not commit reversible error or abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the district court (1) applied the correct standard and did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motions for appointment of successor trial counsel and by denying counsel's motion to withdraw; (2) did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant's request to obtain his own physical copies of discovery material; (3) did not abuse its discretion in discharging an African-American juror; (4) did not err by allowing the State to present a portion of its case in chief in Defendant's absence; and (5) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his remaining assignments of error. View "State v. Figures" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the district court issuing a declaratory judgment generally in favor of Plaintiffs regarding the proper construction and application of the election procedures in Neb. Rev. Stat. 31-735(2)(b), holding that Plaintiffs failed to join indispensable parties.Plaintiffs, several board members of a sanitary improvement district, brought this action to determine the proper construction and application of section 31-735. The district court entered a declaratory judgment generally in favor of Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court vacated the district court's judgment, holding that Plaintiffs failed to join indispensable parties and that, therefore, the district court lacked jurisdiction to determine the controversy. View "Sanitary Improvement District No. 2 of Knox County v. Fischer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court in favor of the State in this negligence action for damages under Nebraska's State Tort Claims Act (STCA), Neb. Rev. Stat. 81-8,209 et seq., holding that the State was immune from Plaintiff's claims under the discretionary function exception of the STCA.Plaintiff was an inmate at the Tecumseh State Correctional Institution during riots that occurred in 2015. In his complaint, Plaintiff, who was in protective custody at the time of the riots, alleged that, due to the Department of Correctional Services's negligence he was improperly commingled with general population inmates and placed at risk, causing the symptoms of his post-traumatic stress disorder to be exacerbated. The district court found in favor of the State. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly concluded that the discretionary function exception to the STCA shielded the State from liability on Plaintiff's claims. View "Wizinsky v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the county court determining that it lacked authority to permit adoption by a same-sex married couple, holding that the plain language of Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-101 permits a same-sex married couple to adopt a minor child.Kelly and Maria filed a petition to adopt Yasmin. The county court denied the request, determining that it did not have the authority to permit adoption by a "wife and wife." The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the county court erred in determining that it lacked jurisdiction to permit a same-sex married couple to adopt a child. View "In re Adoption of Yasmin S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the district court ordering Mother to allow grandparent visitation and finding Mother in contempt when she refused, holding that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.Grandmother petitioned the district court requesting visitation with Child. The district court granted the request for grandparent visitation. The court later found Mother to be in contempt of court and ordered her to allow visitation between Grandparent and Child. Mother filed a motion to vacate and strike the visitation order, arguing that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court overruled the motion. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding (1) because the biological father was an indispensable party to the action but was not included in the proceedings the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter the order granting grandparent visitation; and (2) because the order granting grandparent visitation was void, the order finding Mother in contempt of the order was also void. View "Davis v. Moats" on Justia Law