Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the juvenile court adjudicating Prince R. as a child who lacked proper parental care by reason of the fault or habits of his parents, holding that the juvenile court did not err.In its adjudication petition, the State asserted that Prince's parents had failed to ensure that Prince received necessary medical care after he was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer. After a hearing, the juvenile court found that Prince lacked proper parental care by reason of the fault or habits of the parents and that the parents' actions placed Prince at a definite risk of harm. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the juvenile court did not err by adjudicating Prince as a child that lacked proper parental care by reason of the fault or habits of his parents. View "In re Prince R." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the county court declining to approve a nonjudicial settlement agreement, holding that the agreement violated a material purpose of the trust, of which Appellant was a beneficiary.Appellant, a beneficiary of a trust created by his father, now deceased, filed this action in the county court seeking approval of a trust settlement agreement entered into between Appellant, his mother, and his sister. Appellant further sought an order requiring compliance with the terms of the agreement. The trial court issued an order rejecting the agreement and finding that the agreement was nonbinding under Neb. Rev. Stat. 30-3811. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the probate court did not err in finding that the agreement altered a material purpose of the trust and in declining to approve the agreement. View "In re Trust Created by McGregor" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Appellant's complaint to modify the parties' divorce decree and parenting plan with the ultimate objective of allowing her to move with the parties' children to Nebraska, holding that the district court correctly determined that proper jurisdiction of the issue is with Arizona.After the decree and parenting plan were entered, the district court entered an order modifying the parenting plan to permit the parties to move from Nebraska to Arizona. After the parties and the children moved to Arizona Appellant filed the current complaint. The district court dismissed the complaint to modify, determining that it lacked continuing exclusive jurisdiction over the child custody determination and that proper jurisdiction of the current issue is with Arizona. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court's jurisdictional ruling was proper and that Appellant's assignments of error were without merit. View "Hogan v. Hogan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the opinion of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the district court denying Father's motion to modify parenting time, holding that the district court abused its discretion.At issue was the interpretation of a provision in the parties' custody agreement incorporated into the divorce decree stating that if a dispute over modification were submitted to a court, the court would apply the "then-governing legal standard." In denying Father's motion, the district court concluded that although more parenting time with Father would be in the child's best interests, Father failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed and remanded the case, holding (1) the agreement incorporated into the decree did not purport to set forth the legal standard under which a court could adjudicate a complaint to modify; and (2) there was a material change in circumstances. View "Weaver v. Weaver" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Defendant's appeal of her sentence of probation stemming from her conviction of one count of possession of a controlled substance, holding that the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear this matter.A jury found Defendant guilty of one count of possession of a controlled substance. On March 17, 2020, the district court sentenced Defendant to one year of probation. On March 20, 2020, the court entered an amended order of probation allowing Defendant to reside in Kansas instead of Nebraska. The rest of the March 17 sentencing order remained in effect. On appeal, Defendant argued that she received ineffective assistance of counsel when her trial counsel failed to timely appeal from the March 17 sentencing order. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that there was no proper, timely appeal in this case. View "State v. Reames" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences for five counts of robbery, five counts of use of a weapon to commit a felony, one count of second-degree assault, and one count of attempted escape, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his assignments of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err when it overruled Defendant's motion to suppress statements he made while in custody; (2) the district court did not err in overruling Defendant's motion to suppress evidence of witness identifications from photographic lineups; (3) there was sufficient evidence to support the district court's finding that Defendant failed to prove the insanity defense; and (4) Defendant's sentences were not excessive. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of marijuana, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress.In his suppression motion, Defendant sought to suppress evidence found in his vehicle during a felony traffic stop. The stop was initiated based on law enforcement's belief that Defendant's vehicle matched the description in a police bulletin of a vehicle used in a shooting committed three days prior. In his motion to suppress, Defendant argued that the police bulletin was insufficient to justify the traffic stop. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of the suppression motion, holding (1) the felony traffic stop was a tier-two police-citizen encounter; and (2) the law enforcement officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop of Defendant's vehicle based on the police bulletin alone. View "State v. Thomas" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court finding that there was good cause to extend or continue a harassment protection order against Defendant, holding that Defendant's assignments of error were without merit.On February 3, 2020, Plaintiff sought a harassment protection order from the district court. After an ex parte order was issued a hearing was held on whether the ex parte order should be continued. The trial court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss and continued the harassment protection order until one year from the date of the original order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in (1) finding sufficient support to order the ex parte harassment protection order; and (2) denying Defendant's request to stay the show cause hearing. View "Hawkins v. Delgado" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of driving under the influence, second offense, and speeding and operating a vehicle without a driver's license, holding that the Court could not consider Defendant's assignment of error that implicitly challenged the constitutionality of Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-2705.Section 25-2705 prohibits jury trials for criminal cases arising under city ordinances. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred when it failed to found that the county court had violated his right to a jury trial. The Noting that Defendant's appeal inextricably involved an implied challenge to the constitutionality of a statute, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Court could not reach the merits of Defendant's appeal because he failed to provide notice as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. 2-109(E). View "State v. Catlin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Douglas County and dismissing Plaintiff's suit brought under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (PSTCA), Neb. Rev. Stat. 13-901 to 13-928, holding that dismissal was proper on grounds of sovereign immunity.Plaintiff was held hostage and sexually assaulted by a former boyfriend. In her personal injury complaint, Plaintiff alleged that the County mishandled a series of 911 calls and, consequently, emergency personnel did not arrive in time to prevent or stop the sexual assault. The district court found that the County owed no legal duty to Plaintiff and dismissed the case. The Supreme Court affirmed but on different grounds, holding that Plaintiff's negligence claim against the County fell within the exemption from the PSTCA "[a]ny claim arising out of assault." View "Edwards v. Douglas County" on Justia Law