Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court ordering reinstatement of D.H.'s firearm rights, holding that there was no error on the part of the district court.After D.H. attempted suicide in 1995 a mental health board obtained a mental health commitment. As a result of D.H.'s commitment, federal and state statutes restricted his rights to purchase and possess firearms. In 2011, the Legislature enacted Neb. Rev. State. 71-963, which created a procedure whereby those subject to firearm restrictions resulting from a mental health-related commitment or adjudication could petition to have those restrictions removed. D.H. filed a motion to remove his firearm restrictions under section 71-963. The Mental Health Board of the 10th Judicial District of Nebraska denied the petition. The district court initially affirmed the denial but, upon reconsideration, granted the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not commit an error of law or abuse its discretion in sustaining D.H.'s motion to reconsider, alter, or amend. View "In re Interest of D.H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the order of the district court denying Appellant's motion for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing, holding that there was no error.Appellant pled no contest to three counts of possession of child pornography and sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment of fifteen to twenty years on each count. Appellant later filed his motion for postconviction relief, asserting various claims for relief. The district court denied summarily denied the motion. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals (1) did not err when it determined that Appellant's due process claim related to competency was procedurally barred; (2) did not abuse its discretion in affirming the district court's denial of Appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel; and (3) did not err when it concluded that Appellant's due process claim related to competency was procedurally barred. View "State v. Harms" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed sixteen-year-old Sayrah P.'s appeal from an order for electronic monitoring and an order for staff secure detention, holding that this appeal lacked a final, appealable order.A juvenile probation officer found that Sayrah qualified for an alternative to detention and sent her home with an order for electronic monitoring. Two days after the initial screening the juvenile court held a hearing and ordered that Sayrah's electronic monitoring continue. Because Sayrah was noncompliant with her electronic monitoring she was ordered a month later to "staff secure" detention. Sayrah appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of a final, appealable order, holding that the orders appealed from did not affect a substantial right, and therefore, the orders were not appealable. View "In re Interest of Sayrah P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of possession of a controlled substance and vacated his sentence, holding that the Nebraska Probation Administration Act (the Act) does not permit the increase of the term of probation to which the offender was sentenced before a hearing where the violation of probation is established by clear and convincing evidence.The State charged Defendant with possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, based on items found in his bedroom following a probation search. The district court denied Defendant's motion to suppress, concluding that Defendant was still on probation and subject to his probation terms at the time of the search. Defendant was subsequently convicted and sentenced. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant did not voluntarily consent to the search, and the special needs exception to the warrant requirement did not apply; (2) Defendant was not subject to conditions of probation and was not obligated to permit the search at issue; (3) the search of Defendant's bedroom was unreasonable, and the items found therein should have been suppressed; and (4) because the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain Defendant's conviction, double jeopardy did not bar a second trial. View "State v. Simons" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of dissolution in this case, holding that the district court did not err in awarding Wife alimony and an equalization payment and in equally dividing student loans for the parties' children.After the district court entered its judgment Husband timely filed a motion to alter the judgment or alternatively, for a new trial, arguing that the district court erred in awarding Wife alimony, awarding Wife a $53,200 equalization payment, and classifying the student loans incurred for the parties' adult children as marital debt subject to equal division. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the alimony award was not unreasonable; (2) the equalization payment was not an abuse of discretion; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in classifying the student loans incurred for the parties' children as marital debt that was to be equally divided between the parties. View "Radmanesh v. Radmanesh" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Plaintiff's complaint against the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (DCS) and three of its officials regarding computation of Plaintiff's tentative mandatory release date (TRD), holding that there was no error.Plaintiff, an inmate, filed an action for declaratory judgment alleging that DCS was responsible for actions infringing on her constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by concluding that her TRD was consistent with Nebraska statutes and case law. The district court dismissed the case for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted under 42 U.S.C. 1983; and (2) the trial court lacked jurisdiction under Neb. Rev. Stat. 84-911 for Plaintiff's claims against DCS. View "Williams v. Frakes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court overruling Defendant's motion to suppress and convicting her of possession of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia following a stipulated bench trial, holding that the district court did not err when it overruled Defendant's motion to suppress.In denying Defendant's suppression motion, the trial court concluded that Defendant consented to a search of her vehicle, in which certain illegal items were found, and that a subsequent search of Defendant's person occurred incident to a valid arrest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) probable cause existed to arrest Defendant, and the subsequent search of her person occurred incident to a valid arrest; and (2) Defendant was not entitled to relief on her remaining allegations of error. View "State v. Hammond" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court denying Appellant's motion to intervene in a suit involving her husband's estate, holding that Appellant had a direct and legal interest in the litigation sufficient to support intervention under Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-238.Appellant was appointed to serve as personal representative of her deceased husband's estate. In that capacity, Appellant filed suit against the estate of her husband's brother. Thereafter, a special administrator was appointed to administer the estate of Appellant's husband, and the administrator advanced this litigation. Appellant subsequently filed a motion to intervene in this suit in her individual capacity. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Appellant had a direct and legal interest in the litigation and was entitled to intervene. View "Harchelroad v. Harchelroad" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the State in this action brought by Plaintiff alleging that his injuries were proximately caused by the negligence of a state employee, holding that the State was immune based on the recreational activity exemption to the State's waiver of sovereign immunity.Plaintiff was sitting at a table in a State-owned recreation area when a park superintendent started mowing wet grass in the area with a riding lawnmower. The mower slipped on the grass, slid down a slope, and collided with the picnic table, throwing Plaintiff from the table and causing him to suffer injuries. Plaintiff brought a negligence lawsuit against the State. The district court granted summary judgment for the state, concluding that both the recreational activity and weather conditions exemptions in the State Tort Claims Act (STCA) applied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment based on the STCA's weather conditions exemption. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the determination of the director of the Department of Natural Resources that each purported objector to an application seeking an interbasin transfer to divert surface water from an over-appropriated Platte River reach to the Republican River Basin, holding that the purported objectors lacked standing.Several objector entities filed objectives to the operative application, but the director dismissed all of those entities for lack of standing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) to have standing in this surface water appropriation case Appellants were required to meet the common-law standard; and (2) because Appellants' allegations did not demonstrate that they had or will suffer an injury in fact each failed to establish standing. View "In re Application A-19594" on Justia Law