Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court transferring sole legal and physical custody over C.J. to Duke Jaeger, subject to Stacey Jaeger's parenting time, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by moving C.J. to Duke's sole legal and physical custody; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Stacy's testimony about previous abuse allegations; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Stacey's motion for a new trial. View "Jaeger v. Jaeger" on Justia Law

In this proceeding brought by the daughters of Gale Marsh to determine the amount of inheritance tax due, the Supreme Court affirmed the county court's determination of the ownership interest of Marsh's revocable trust in a limited liability company valued at more than $12 million, holding that the court did not err in determining that assignments signed by Marsh rather than the trustees were valid.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) published notice of the evidentiary hearing was not a prerequisite of the County court's subject matter jurisdiction, and even if notice was not published, the County did not suffer prejudice; (2) the county court did not abuse its discretion in overruling the County's motion for a continuance; and (3) the court's determination that ownership interests were validly transferred from the trust conformed to the law, was supported by competent evidence, and was neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable. View "In re Estate of Marsh" on Justia Law

In this divorce action, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court ordering Timothy Weiland to pay Ann Weiland a fixed award of $465 per month for military pension benefits and to pay Ann her share of Timothy's retirement benefits had had received and not paid to Ann, holding that the district court erred when it assigned a fixed monthly dollar value.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that under the parties' divorce decree, the district court erred when it assigned a fixed monthly dollar value to Ann's interest in Timothy's military retirement benefits. Ann was entitled to an award of military pension benefits and back payments, but the fixed monthly benefit award and the fixed monthly amount of back payments was vacated. The Court reversed and remanded with directions to determine the equitable distribution of Timothy's military retirement expressed as a formula that adheres to the points awarded in the decree and consistent with a hypothetical retirement date as of the date of the decree. View "Weiland v. Weiland" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court denying Defendant's motion for discharge, holding that the time Defendant spent incarcerated in Douglas County was properly attributable to Defendant for purposes of her speedy trial rights.Defendant was arrested in Lancaster County and charged with possession of methamphetamine. One day before her pretrial docket call, Defendant was arrested for shoplifting in Douglas County. Defendant was arrested on a bench warrant by authorities at Douglas County Department of Corrections but was not returned to Lancaster County. After Defendant was convicted and served her sentence in Douglas County for the shoplifting charge, Defendant was transported to Lancaster County. Defendant filed a motion for absolute charge, which the Lancaster County District Court denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Lancaster County District Court did not err in excluding from Defendant's speedy trial calculation the time she spent incarcerated while awaiting charges in Douglas County and while serving her sentence. View "State v. Blocher" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court entering summary judgment in favor of Heartland Heating & Air Conditions, Inc. on the claims brought by Troy and Julie Fuelberth alleging that Heartland's work for them was defective, holding that Heartland was not entitled to summary judgment.In their complaint, the Fuelberths alleged that Heartland performed defective work for them in designing, constructing and installing an interior in-floor geothermal system and an exterior cement system for a shop building on the Fuelberths' farm. The district court entered summary judgment for Heartland on statute of limitations grounds. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court by entering summary judgment in favor of Heartland on statute of limitations grounds. View "Fuelberth v. Heartland Heating & Air Conditioning" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentences imposed pursuant to jury convictions related to a prison escape, holding that Defendant's claims lacked merit.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of escape, theft by unlawful taking, and operating a motor vehicle to avoid arrest. The trial court found Defendant to be a habitual criminal and sentenced him to a combined consecutive term of eighty to 140 years' imprisonment. Defendant appealed, assigning fourteen errors in his appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to show that the trial court erred or abused its discretion in its rulings. View "State v. Clausen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court modifying several provisions of a judgment establishing custody, visitation, and support of minor children based on the common-law doctrine of in loco parentis, holding that the correct modification standard was applied.In its order, the district court found a material change in circumstances and modified several provisions pertaining to the support of the minor children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) judgments establishing in loco parentis rights regarding the custody, visitation, and support of a minor child ordinarily will not be modified absent a material change in circumstances affecting the best interests of the child, but whether the in loco parentis relationship has changed is relevant to determining whether there has been a material change in circumstances and whether modification is in the child's best interests; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that a material change in circumstances justified modifying support-related provisions concerning the minor children. View "Windham v. Kroll" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of restitution entered by the separate juvenile court after Juvenile admitted to an amended allegation of disturbing the peace and quiet of another person, holding that the juvenile court had the authority to order restitution for medical expenses so long as such order was in the interest of the juvenile's reformation or rehabilitation.As a term of probation, the juvenile court ordered Juvenile to pay $500 in restitution for the victim's medical expenses. Juvenile court argued on appeal that the Nebraska Juvenile Code does not authorize a juvenile court to order restitution for medical expenses incurred by a victim. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of restitution for medical expenses, holding (1) Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-286(1)(a) authorized the juvenile court to order Juvenile to pay restitution for medical expenses; and (2) there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that Juvenile caused the victim's injuries and to support the amount of restitution ordered, and the order of restitution was in the interest of Juvenile's reformation and rehabilitation. View "In re Interest of Seth C." on Justia Law

In case No. S-20-009, the Supreme Court reversed the order of the juvenile court denying Father's motion for placement, and in case No. S-20-244, affirmed the order of adjudication of the child over Father's objection, holding that the juvenile court erred in finding Father unfit and in denying his parental preference for physical custody.The Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services was given temporary custody of the child and placed him in temporary foster care. After Father became aware that the child was in foster care he moved for temporary physical placement. The juvenile court denied the motion and proceeded with adjudication of the child. In case No. S-20-009, Father appealed the denial of his motion for placement. In case No. S-20-244, Father argued that his appeal in case No. S-20-009 divested the juvenile court of jurisdiction to issue the adjudication. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the order denying Father's motion for placement, holding that because Father was not given notice that his fitness or forfeiture were to be adjudicated at the hearing on his motion for placement, the juvenile court could not properly deprive him of his right to custody under the parental preference doctrine; and (2) affirmed the order of adjudication in case No. S-20-244, holding that the order of adjudication was not void. View "In re Interest of A.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court summarily denying Defendant's motion to vacate or modify seeking reinstatement of his appeal a postconviction ruling, holding that the district court erred when it denied Defendant's motion without a hearing.Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. After Defendant brought an unsuccessful appeal he filed a petition for postconviction relief. The district court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, but his request to proceed in forma pauperis and the accompanying poverty affidavit were not timely filed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Defendant subsequently filed in the district court a motion to vacate or modify, seeking reinstatement of his appeal on the grounds that the negligent acts of prison officials in the mailroom at the penitentiary delayed the filing of his poverty affidavit. The district court denied the motion without a hearing. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a hearing on the motion, holding that Defendant's claim of official negligence was sufficient to obtain a hearing at which to submit proof to the court of his allegation of official negligence. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law