Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court denied the motion for attorney fees and expenses against the State by the intervenor in a juvenile proceeding who successfully appealed a final order during the pendency of the case, holding that the State's limited waiver of sovereign immunity set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-1804(1) did not apply to the fees and expenses sought.On appeal, the parties disputed whether the juvenile proceedings were a civil action and whether they were brought by the State and whether the State was substantially justified in its position. The Supreme Court held (1) the State's position in bringing and maintaining the underlying petition for adjudication was substantially justified; and (2) accordingly, no statute provided for the recovery of the intervenor's attorney fees and expenses incurred in this appeal. View "In re Interest of A.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court entered against Appellants - Conveyance Consulting Group, Inc., Jones Consulting Inc., and Jonathan Jones - holding that Appellants' claims were either waived or without merit.Eletech, Inc. brought this action alleging that Jones, the former Vice President of Eletech, engaged in self-dealing and interfered with business opportunities. The court entered judgment in favor of Eletech as a discovery sanction and dismissed Appellants' counterclaim. Appellants appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in granting motions to withdraw, motions to compel, and a motion for sanctions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellants' claims were unavailing. View "Eletech, Inc. v. Conveyance Consulting Group, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences for second degree murder and use of a firearm to commit a felony, holding that the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings and that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err when it overruled Defendant's motion in liming to exclude the testimony of a firearm and toolmark examiner and when it subsequently overruled Defendant's renewed objection at trial; (2) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant's convictions; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion when imposing sentences. View "State v. Wheeler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court affirming the judgment of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) concluding that DHHS had overpaid OMNI Behavioral Health (OMNI) under a contract, holding that there was no merit to the errors assigned by OMNI.Under the contract at issue, OMNI agreed to operate a group home and provide services for individuals with developmental disabilities. In 2018, DHHS issued a notice of overpayment to OMNI determining that OMNI was overpaid under the contract by $34,876. After a hearing, hearing officer recommended that DHHS' finding of an overpayment be affirmed. The director of the Division of Developmental Disabilities adopted the hearing officer's order as the final order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no merit to the errors assigned by OMNI. View "OMNI Behavioral Health v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed all of Defendant's convictions with the exception of the misdemeanor violation of carrying a concealed weapon in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-1202, which the court reversed and remanded with directions to vacate, holding that the insufficient to support the conviction for carrying a concealed weapon.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court for York County was the proper venue in which to bring charges against Defendant; (2) the district court did not err by commencing the trial without appointing him counsel or standby counsel; (3) the district court did not violate Defendant's right to be present when it commenced trial with Defendant's representing himself pro se and when it continued with the trial after Defendant failed to reappear following noon recess; and (4) while the evidence was sufficient to support the majority of Defendant's convictions, there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that Defendant was carrying a weapon concealed on or about his person. View "State v. Warlick" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Defendant's pro se motion for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing, holding that Defendant's claims were all either procedurally barred, based upon mere conclusions of fact and law, or refuted by the trial record.Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and other offenses. In his pro se motion for postconviction relief, Defendant argued (1) law enforcement extracted information from his cell phone before the crime occurred and unlawfully searched the phone before obtaining a warrant, (2) the State committed a Brady violation, (3) there were various acts of prosecutorial misconduct committed during trial, and (4) both trial counsel and appellate counsel were ineffective. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of postconviction relief, holding that there was no merit to Defendant's assignments of error. View "State v. Stelly" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court finding that the divorce decree in this case required Father to pay for his daughter's college education and automobile, holding that there was no merit to Father's arguments on appeal.In this contempt proceeding, the district court concluded that the decree clearly required Father to pay the automobile expenses and ordered him to provide Mother with documentation of the college savings account for his daughter. On appeal, Father argued that the district court order was punitive and thus wrong entered in a civil contempt proceeding, and that the district court should have found that he was not obligated to pay for the college and car expenses because his daughter had repudiated her relationship with him. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in rejecting Father's arguments and requiring that he pay his daughter's college and automobile expenses. View "Johnson v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court affirming the decision of the State Personnel Board determining that an award of "front pay," commonly viewed as money awarded in lieu of employment reinstatement, was not appropriate, holding that there were no errors in the record.After the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) terminated Appellant's job as a health program manager, Appellant challenged the termination. Appellant sought lost wages, including lost benefits, front pay, and back pay. DHHS eventually withdrew the allegations against Appellant but contested his claim for front pay. The district court concluded that the Personnel Board lacked authority to grant the equitable relief of front pay. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it found that Appellant could be reinstated and, therefore, Appellant's claim for front pay was properly denied. View "Christopherson v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs." on Justia Law