Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The State of Nebraska charged Paul Douglas Brooks with two counts of first-degree sexual assault and one count of third-degree sexual assault of a child, all involving the same victim, H.S. Brooks filed a plea in abatement, which was overruled, and he was arraigned. The State later filed a notice of intent to offer evidence of other sexual assaults by Brooks under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-414, identifying additional victims. Brooks requested time to take depositions of these witnesses, which delayed the hearing on the State’s notice.The district court for Furnas County overruled Brooks’ motion for absolute discharge based on statutory speedy trial grounds. Brooks conceded that the time related to his plea in abatement was excludable but argued that no other periods should be excluded. The court rejected the State’s argument that the period from arraignment to the status hearing should be excluded but agreed that the time Brooks requested to take depositions was excludable. The court found that Brooks’ request for time to take depositions constituted good cause under § 29-1207(4)(f) and excluded the period from May 23, 2024, to mid-July 2024, extending the trial deadline to October 26, 2024.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s findings and affirmed the decision. The court agreed that the period from May 23 to mid-July was excludable for good cause, as Brooks requested this time to complete depositions. This exclusion extended the trial deadline beyond the date Brooks filed his motion for absolute discharge and the scheduled trial date. Therefore, the district court did not err in overruling Brooks’ motion for absolute discharge. View "State v. Brooks" on Justia Law

Marjorie Johnson, the owner of farmland, was denied a permit by the Village of Polk to drill a new well for irrigating her farmland. She sought a declaratory judgment that the ordinance requiring a permit for new wells in the village’s wellhead protection area was invalid, arguing it was preempted by the Nebraska Ground Water Management and Protection Act (NGWMPA) and violated state law by interfering with her existing farming operations.The district court for Polk County denied her request for declaratory judgment and her petition in error. The court found that the ordinance was not preempted by the NGWMPA, as the Legislature intended for both local natural resources districts (NRDs) and municipalities to have control over water sources. The court also found that the ordinance did not interfere with Johnson’s existing farming operations, as the land was previously irrigated through an agreement with a neighbor, and it was the dispute with the neighbor, not the ordinance, that resulted in the land being dryland.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the ordinance was enacted under the necessary statutory grant of power to the municipality, as the Wellhead Protection Area Act and other statutes granted villages the authority to adopt controls to protect public water supplies. The court also found no field or conflict preemption by the NGWMPA, as the Legislature did not intend to deprive municipalities of their statutory authority to require permits for wells within wellhead protection areas. Finally, the court agreed that the ordinance did not interfere with Johnson’s existing farming operations, as the existing farming at the time of the permit request was dryland farming, and it was the neighbor’s actions, not the ordinance, that prevented irrigation. View "Johnson v. Village of Polk" on Justia Law

William C. Dugan sought a harassment protection order against Steve Sorensen, alleging that Sorensen attacked him in the driveway of Sorensen's home while Dugan was picking up his children. Dugan claimed Sorensen knocked him down, banged his head into the pavement, and later threatened him while he was in his car waiting for the police. Sorensen argued that he intervened to protect his wife, Natalie Sorensen, who he believed was being assaulted by Dugan. The incident was partially captured on a neighbor's security camera.The district court for Douglas County issued an ex parte harassment protection order in favor of Dugan. At a subsequent show cause hearing, the court reviewed the evidence, including the security footage and testimonies from Dugan, Sorensen, Natalie, and the older child of Dugan and Natalie. The court found Dugan's testimony more credible and determined that Sorensen's actions constituted harassment. The court affirmed the protection order, finding that Sorensen's conduct involved multiple acts of harassment.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo. The court held that a course of conduct for harassment protection orders requires at least two separate acts of harassment. The court found that Sorensen's physical assault on Dugan in the driveway and the subsequent verbal threats while Dugan was in his car constituted two separate acts of harassment. The court also addressed Sorensen's justification defense, noting that justification is an affirmative defense in criminal prosecutions and certain civil actions but not explicitly in civil protection order proceedings. The court affirmed the district court's decision to issue the harassment protection order, concluding that Sorensen's actions met the statutory definition of harassment and that his justification defense was not applicable. View "Dugan v. Sorensen" on Justia Law

In this case, Matthew M. Jaksha and Jessica L. Jaksha's marriage was dissolved in 2017, with a stipulated decree awarding joint legal and physical custody of their minor child. In 2020, a modification awarded Matthew sole legal custody, while Jessica retained decision-making over the child's religious upbringing. In 2021, another modification granted Matthew sole legal and physical custody, with a tiered parenting plan for Jessica's supervised and unsupervised parenting time, contingent on her sobriety.Jessica filed a complaint to modify in 2023, citing her sustained sobriety, but the district court dismissed it, finding no material change in circumstances. Jessica did not appeal this decision but instead filed a complaint in 2024 to vacate or amend the 2021 modification order, arguing it was not a final order and should be relitigated.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the 2021 modification order was final as it resolved all issues raised in the modification pleadings. The court also found that the district court correctly refused to vacate or modify the order, as Jessica's complaint was filed long after the term in which the order was entered, and she failed to establish grounds under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2001(4) or any equitable basis for vacating the order. The court also declined to consider Jessica's argument that the order was void as against public policy, as it was raised for the first time on appeal. View "Jaksha v. Jaksha" on Justia Law

A minor child, through his mother, filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against an obstetrician, the clinic where the obstetrician was employed, and the hospital where he was born. The child suffered an obstetric brachial plexus injury during birth. The district court excluded the package insert for Pitocin used during the birth, ruling it was hearsay and lacked foundation. The child also argued that the court erred in not giving his requested jury instructions and giving other erroneous instructions, which he did not object to at trial.The District Court for Douglas County ruled in favor of the defendants. The jury found that the child had not met his burden of proof and rendered a general verdict for the defendants. The child appealed, arguing that the jury instructions were erroneous and prejudicial.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the district court committed plain error by instructing the jury that it could not determine the standard of care from the testimony of expert witnesses. This erroneous instruction was on a vital issue and misled the jury, prejudicially affecting a substantial right of the child. The court held that the error was of such a nature that to leave it uncorrected would cause a miscarriage of justice or result in damage to the integrity, reputation, and fairness of the judicial process.The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, without addressing the remaining assignments of error, as they were unnecessary to adjudicate the case and might be tried differently on remand. View "J.R.M.B. v. Alegent Creighton Health" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute where Pranay Bajjuri and others (appellees) sued Anand Karney, Sudha Karney (appellants), and others for unjust enrichment, fraud, and civil conspiracy. The appellees alleged that the appellants fraudulently induced them to invest in various limited liability companies (LLCs) for purchasing and operating rental properties, but the appellants diverted the investments for personal gain. The appellants failed to produce financial and organizational documents related to the LLCs during discovery, leading to the current appeal.The District Court for Douglas County issued a scheduling order for discovery and trial. Despite repeated requests and a court order to compel, the appellants did not produce the required documents. The appellees filed a motion for sanctions, seeking default judgment and attorney fees. The district court found that the appellants had repeatedly violated discovery rules and had been previously warned of sanctions. The court granted the motion for sanctions, entering a default judgment of $2,201,385.82 and awarding attorney fees of $180,645.68 against the appellants.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and upheld the district court's decision. The court found that the appellants had frustrated the discovery process and failed to comply with the court's order to compel. The court determined that the appellants, as members and managers of the LLCs, had the ability to obtain and produce the required documents but did not do so. The court concluded that the sanctions of default judgment and attorney fees were appropriate given the appellants' inexcusable recalcitrance and history of discovery abuse. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's orders, finding no abuse of discretion. View "Bajjuri v. Karney" on Justia Law

Felipe N. Gonzalez Vazquez was involved in a standoff with law enforcement officers at a residence in Lincoln, Nebraska, on August 26, 2020. Vazquez, who had locked himself in a bedroom, fired multiple gunshots during the standoff, injuring two officers and fatally wounding one. Vazquez was charged with first degree murder and other related felonies. He was found guilty on all counts by a jury and sentenced to prison.In the district court, Vazquez filed motions in limine to exclude testimony about his gang affiliation and the specific nature of the arrest warrants, which were granted. During the trial, Vazquez made two motions for mistrial based on alleged violations of the court's order in limine, both of which were denied. The jury returned guilty verdicts on all charges, and Vazquez was sentenced to a term of not less than 70 years nor more than life for first degree murder, along with additional consecutive sentences for the other convictions.On appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court, Vazquez argued that the district court erred in denying his motions for mistrial, admitting certain testimony, and accepting the guilty verdicts due to insufficient evidence. He also claimed cumulative error and ineffective assistance of trial counsel in 17 respects. The Nebraska Supreme Court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's rulings, determined that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and concluded that Vazquez's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel either lacked merit, were not sufficiently raised, or could not be resolved on direct appeal. Consequently, the court affirmed Vazquez's convictions and sentences. View "State v. Vasquez" on Justia Law

Tara Gentele and Christopher Gentele were involved in divorce proceedings and attempted to resolve their disputes through mediation. Christopher claimed that a settlement agreement was reached during mediation, but Tara denied this. Christopher then asked the district court to enforce the settlement agreement. The district court found that a settlement agreement had been reached and entered a dissolution decree based on its terms. The decree required Christopher to make equalization payments to Tara and to divide certain credit card rewards points between them. Christopher made the first payment and transferred the rewards points, which Tara accepted. Tara then filed an appeal, arguing that the district court erred in enforcing the settlement agreement.The district court for Lancaster County found that the parties had reached an enforceable settlement agreement during mediation and entered a dissolution decree based on that agreement. Tara accepted the benefits provided by the decree but subsequently filed an appeal challenging the enforcement of the settlement agreement.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that Tara's appeal was precluded by the acceptance of benefits rule. This rule generally prevents an appellant from accepting the benefits of a judgment and then appealing the parts of the judgment that are unfavorable. The court found that Tara's acceptance of the equalization payment and rewards points was inconsistent with her appeal. The court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the acceptance of benefits rule applied and barred Tara from challenging the decree. View "Gentele v. Gentele" on Justia Law

Aldrick Scott was convicted of first-degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and tampering with physical evidence after he shot and killed his former girlfriend, Cari Allen, in her home, buried her body, and disposed of other evidence. Scott claimed self-defense, stating that Allen had pulled a gun on him during an argument. However, evidence showed Scott had driven from Topeka to Omaha, where Allen lived, and waited outside her house before the incident. Scott's actions after the shooting, including disposing of Allen's body and other evidence, and fleeing to Belize, were also presented at trial.The District Court for Douglas County denied Scott's motion to suppress evidence obtained from his arrest and search by Belizean police, which included his cell phone. Scott argued that his arrest and search violated Belizean law and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belize, and that the evidence should be excluded under the Fourth Amendment. The court found that U.S. law enforcement did not substantially participate in Scott's arrest and search, and thus, the exclusionary rule did not apply.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the involvement of U.S. law enforcement did not amount to a joint venture with Belizean police, and thus, the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule did not apply. The court also found that any error in admitting the cell phone evidence was harmless, as it was cumulative of Scott's own testimony. Additionally, the court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find Scott guilty of all charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The court affirmed Scott's convictions and sentences. View "State v. Scott" on Justia Law

A 15-year-old male was charged with a Class II felony for allegedly sexually assaulting a 14-year-old female at a high school in Omaha, Nebraska. The incident was reported by the victim, L.S., who stated that the assault occurred within the school premises. Video footage and interviews with the involved parties, including the accused, Jeremiah T., and a witness, G.G., were part of the evidence. L.S. claimed that Jeremiah forcibly assaulted her despite her resistance, while Jeremiah contended that the encounter was consensual. G.G.'s involvement as a lookout was also scrutinized.The district court overruled Jeremiah's motion to transfer the case to juvenile court, citing concerns about public safety and the severity of the offense. The court found that the nature of the crime and the degree of violence involved suggested that Jeremiah might need supervision beyond the age of 19, which the juvenile court could not provide. The court also noted that while Jeremiah was amenable to treatment, the timeline for effective rehabilitation within the juvenile system was uncertain.The Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, arguing that the lower court abused its discretion. The appellate court emphasized that the evidence favored Jeremiah's rehabilitation within the juvenile system and that the State did not sufficiently prove a sound basis for retaining the case in adult court. The Court of Appeals highlighted the availability of appropriate services in the juvenile system and questioned the district court's interpretation of the evidence.Upon further review, the Nebraska Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals had improperly reweighed the evidence and failed to apply the correct standard of review. The Supreme Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in retaining the case in adult court, as its decision was supported by appropriate evidence and considerations of public safety. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case with directions to affirm the district court's order. View "State v. Jeremiah T." on Justia Law