Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment against a real estate agency on its complaint against the seller and buyers of certain property for breach of an exclusive listing agreement and tortious interference with a contract, business relationship, or expectation, holding that summary judgment was properly granted.The sale of the property occurred after the listing period and after the protection period of the agreement, and no commission was paid. The negotiations for the sale were conducted directly between the seller and buyers, with the real estate agent's knowledge. The district court granted Defendants' motions for summary judgment. On appeal, the real estate agency argued that summary judgment was inappropriate because the district court held the summary judgment hearing before the real estate company had conducted depositions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not prematurely address Defendants' motions for summary judgment; and (2) the district court erred in awarding attorney fees. View "George Clift Enterprises, Inc. v. Oshkosh Feedyard Corp." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of a convenience store in this personal injury action, holding that the convenience store was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.This action arose from an accident between a pickup truck and a pedestrian in the parking lot of the convenience store. The pedestrian sued the convenience store alleging that the accident was caused by a dangerous condition on the property. In granting summary judgment for the convenience store, the district court found that the driver's negligence was not reasonably foreseeable. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the convenience store's liability was governed by premises liability jurisprudence; and (2) the third element of the premises liability test could not be satisfied, and the pedestrian's claim against the convenience store failed as a matter of law. View "Sundermann v. Hy-Vee, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of obstructing a police officer, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.When law enforcement officers were returning property to Defendant at her home, they were greeted by Defendant's husband, against whom Defendant had a protection order. Worried that she was "going to get in trouble" Defendant fled through a window and was found by officers a block away. Defendant was convicted of obstructing a peace officer. On appeal, Defendant argued that she was convicted without sufficient evidence that she obstructed a peace officer. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence was sufficient to find that Defendant's intentional acts impaired peace officers from enforcing a penal law. View "State v. Cervantes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of Appellant's postconviction motion for DNA testing under Nebraska's DNA Testing Act (Act), Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-4116 et seq., holding that Appellant did not meet his burden of showing that DNA testing may produce noncumulative, exculpatory evidence relevant to his claim that he was wrongfully convicted.Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. Appellant later filed a motion for DNA testing pursuant to the Act requesting DNA testing of four swabs of apparent blood taken from the victim's home and a buccal swab obtained from another individual that had been observed in the area. The district court denied the motion, determining that the requested testing would not produce noncumulative, exculpatory evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion on the grounds that Defendant's request for DNA testing did not satisfy the requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-4120(5)(c). View "State v. Hale" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the district court denying Michael Meister's motion to quash and vacate in a garnishment action that sought to collaterally attack a Wyoming judgment obtained by Gem City Bone and Joint, P.C. against Meister, holding that the Wyoming court incorrectly determined that it had jurisdiction over Meister as an individual.Earlier in the registration and enforcement process Meister and his professional corporation challenged the foreign judgment claiming that the Wyoming court lacked personal jurisdiction to enter judgment against either himself personally or his professional corporation. The district court disagreed and permitted the registration of the foreign order, a decision that Meister and his organization failed timely to appeal. Thereafter, Gem City requested a garnishment to enforce the registered judgment against Meister. In response, Meister filed a motion to quash the garnishment and to vacate the Wyoming judgment. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding that the Wyoming court improperly exercised jurisdiction over Meister as an individual. View "Gem City Bone & Joint, P.C. v. Meister" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for one count of attempted first degree sexual assault of a child and one count of child abuse, holding that the district court did not err by finding Defendant competent to stand trial and in sentencing Defendant.After convicting Defendant, the Supreme Court sentenced Defendant sentencing Defendant to incarceration for terms of twenty to twenty-two years and three years to be served concurrently. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in determining that Defendant was competent to stand trial; and (2) Defendant's sentences were within the statutory sentencing range, and Defendant failed to show that the district court considered improper factors or abused its discretion in sentencing him. View "State v. Lauhead" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the district court's order granting summary judgment for REO Enterprises, LLC and declaring that the Village of Dorchester's ordinance No. 684 unconstitutionally violated the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and Nebraska Constitutions, holding that the ordinance did not violate the Equal Protection Clauses.REO filed a complaint requesting that the district court declare ordinance No. 684 void because it violated the Equal Protection Clauses. Specifically, REO argued that the ordinance treated tenants and owners of property differently when applying for utility services by requiring tenants to obtain a landlord's written guarantee that the landlord would pay any unpaid utility charges for the rented property. The district court entered summary judgment for REO. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the ordinance's requirement that a residential tenant obtain a landlord's guarantee for initiating utility services did not violate the Equal Protection Clauses of the state and federal Constitutions. View "REO Enterprises, LLC v. Village of Dorchester" on Justia Law

In this county court probate case, the Supreme Court affirmed as modified the judgment of the probate court determining that a son must reimburse his mother's estate $190,550, holding that, except as to the son's statute of limitations defense, there was no merit to the son's appeal or the estate's cross-appeal.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the county court correctly exercised jurisdiction over this proceeding; (2) there was no merit to the estate's cross-appeal; (3) except as to the defense of the statute of limitations, the son's appeal lacked merit; and (4) upon this Court's de novo review, the statute of limitations barred the estate's recovery for transactions that occurred before February 1, 2012. View "In re Estate of Adelung" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court in favor of Defendant on Plaintiff's claims for defamation and retaliation, holding that the district court did not err in instructing the jury and in applying Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-840.01 and directing a verdict in favor of Defendant on Plaintiff's defamation claim.After Plaintiff's employment with Defendant was terminated Plaintiff filed a claim of retaliation under the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-1101 to -1126, and defamation. The district court granted a directed verdict for Defendant on the defamation claim, and a jury found Plaintiff failed to prove his retaliation claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not commit prejudicial error in (1) giving a jury instruction for retaliation that required Plaintiff to have opposed or refused to carry out a practice of Defendant that was unlawful; (2) giving a jury instruction on the business judgment rule; and (3) granting Defendant a directed verdict on the defamation claim. View "Haffke v. Signal 88, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that a federal regulation does not impose a duty on insurers to issue policies that satisfy a motor carrier's minimum level of financial responsibility because compliance with the financial responsibility requirements under Neb. Rev. Stat. 75-363 and the pertinent federal regulations is the duty of the motor carrier and not its insurer.Through Neb. Rev. Stat. 75-363 the Nebraska Legislature adopted several parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and made those regulations applicable to certain intrastate motor carriers otherwise not subject to the federal regulations. One of the federal regulations adopted by section 75-363(3)(d) sets out minimum levels of financial responsibility for motor carriers. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether 49 C.F.R. 387 imposes a duty on an insurer to issue a policy with liability limits that satisfy the motor carrier's financial responsibility. The Supreme Court held that compliance with section 75-363 and section 387 is the responsibility of the motor carrier, not on the insurer. View "Shelter Insurance Co. v. Gomez" on Justia Law