Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's plea-based convictions of conspiracy to distribute or deliver a controlled substance (hydrocodone), conspiracy to distribute or deliver a controlled substance (tramadol), and child abuse, holding that there was no reversible error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err in accepting Defendant's guilty pleas because the information expressly alleged overt acts in furtherance of the charged conspiracy to distribute and deliver hydrocodone and tramadol, and the factual basis was sufficient to satisfy Wharton's Rule and support Defendant's guilty pleas; (2) Defendant's assignment of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for counsel's failure to properly inform her of Wharton's Rule was without merit; and (3) the record was insufficient to reach Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance due to her trial counsel's alleged conflict of interest. View "State v. Theisen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court modified the opinion of the court of appeals to direct the dismissal of Plaintiff's amended petition to a limited extent, holding that there was no basis for directing Plaintiff's entire petition to be dismissed.Plaintiff was injured in an acceding arising out of and in the course of his employment. Plaintiff later filed a petition seeking reimbursement for continuing medical treatment related to the work accident, alleging that he had injured his head, neck and lower back and required treatment for depression and anxiety. The compensation court concluded that Plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement for treatment of his lower back, as well as depression and anxiety, but that Plaintiff was not entitled to reimbursement for medical treatment related to head and neck injuries. The court of appeals reversed and remanded with directions to dismiss the petition, concluding that the evidence was insufficient to establish that Plaintiff's depression and anxiety developed as a result of his low back condition. The Supreme Court modified the court of appeals' opinion, concluding that the petition should be dismissed only to the extent it sought reimbursement for treatment for depression, anxiety, and head and neck injuries. View "Frans v. Waldinger Corp." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the county court requiring Webster County to pay fees and expenses to a court-appointed successor personal representative, holding that the court lacked the authority to order the County to pay the successor personal representative fees.In its order, the court found that the court-appointed successor personal representative had served for two and one-half years, that his fees were fair and reasonable, that the estate was insolvent, and that the amount owed by the heirs was likely uncollectible. The court then ordered that Webster County pay the amount of $6,455 to the personal representative. The Supreme Court vacated the order, holding that the court lacked the statutory authority to order the County pay the successor personal representative's fees. View "In re Estate of Hutton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court in favor of BNSF Railway Co. on Plaintiff's negligence action under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. 51 et seq., holding that the exclusion of some of Plaintiff's evidence did not unfairly prejudice Plaintiff.While working for BNSF, Plaintiff was injured when a forklift she was driving tipped over. The jury returned a verdict for BNSF on Plaintiff's negligence action. The district court accepted the verdict and entered judgment. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the district court erred when it excluded evidence of BNSF's admission that the forklift was overloaded and at risk for tipping. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court's exclusion of testimonial evidence of BNSF's designee related to the company's post accident investigation did not unfairly prejudice Plaintiff's substantial right. View "Walker v. BNSF Railway Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court determining that Landowners were entitled to receive an amount equal to the diminution in value of private property as a result of a county's action in felling trees on the property to improve visibility for a nearby road.Franklin County, without permission, cut down and uprooted trees on property owned by Thomas and Pamela Russell. The Russells filed an inverse condemnation proceeding. At issue before the district court was the extent of the damages sustained. The district court granted summary judgment for the County, concluding that the Russells were entitled to receive the fair market value of the property taken and any decrease in the fair market value of remaining property caused by the taking. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Russells were entitled to recover the diminution in value of their land as a result of the removal of the trees. View "Russell v. Franklin County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for possession of a controlled substance, holding that the district court did not err when it overruled Defendant's motion to suppress.In his motion to suppress, Defendant asserted that he was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment because the police didn't to have reasonable suspicion to detain and question him and that the search of his personal effects was unconstitutional because the circumstances did not justify a warrantless search. The trial court determined that reasonable suspicion supported a lawful detention for an investigatory stop and that probable cause existed to justify the search. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the detention of Defendant was an investigatory stop justified by reasonable suspicion; and (2) the search of Defendant's personal effects was undertaken with consent. View "State v. Saitta" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for first-degree sexual assault, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting the English translation of Defendant's Spanish out-of-court statements as nonhearsay.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the district court erred when it admitted Luz Aguirre's Spanish-to-English translations of Defendant's out-of-court statements as a language conduit. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) where the translator of a defendant's out-of-court verbal or written statements from a foreign language to English is shown to be qualified to perform such translation, and where the translator testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination, the translation is admissible as non hearsay under Neb. R. Evid. 801(4); (2) the district court did not err in admitting the nonhearsay evidence; and (3) there was no merit to Defendant's remaining claims. View "State v. Martinez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated in part and affirmed in part the judgment of the district court valuing of the shares of a closely held corporation, holding that the district court erred in entering judgment against both the shareholder and the corporation, rather than the shareholder alone, and in awarding corporate property rather than solely the value of the shares to be purchased.Randy Anderson and Michael Rafert each owned half the shares of A & R Ag Spraying and Trucking, Inc. (A&R). After Randy died, his interest in A&R was transferred to his wife, Cheryl. Cheryl petitioned the district court for judicial dissolution of the corporation, naming A&R and Rafert as defendants. Rafert filed an election to purchase the corporation. The trial court dismissed the dissolution proceedings due to Rafert's application. After determining the value of Cheryl's shares the trial court entered judgment against both A&R and Rafert and awarded Cheryl two corporate vehicles. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment against A&R and the award of vehicles, holding (1) A&R was not a party to the election-to-purchase proceedings, and therefore, the court lacked statutory authority to enter judgment against A&R once it determined the value of Cheryl's shares; and (2) the court lacked the authority to award corporate assets to Cheryl. View "Anderson v. A & R Ag Spraying & Trucking, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order overruling Defendant's motion for absolute discharge in which he contended that the State failed to bring him to trial within the time required by Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1207, holding that Defendant's statutory right to a speedy trial was not violated.In overruling Defendant's motion for absolute discharge, the district court concluded that a period of delay that resulted from a continuance of a settlement conference granted at the State's request but to which Defendant's counsel consented did not count toward the six-month speedy trial deadline. On appeal, Defendant argued that the delay brought about by the continuance of a settlement conference does not result in a period of excluded time. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the continuance of the settlement conference resulted in excluded time; and (2) Defendant statutory right to a speedy trial was not violated. View "State v. Liming" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Defendant postconviction relief, holding that there was no merit to Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims.Defendant was convicted of first degree murder on a felony murder theory and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Defendant filed multiple motions for postconviction relief, which the district court denied without a hearing. On appeal, the Supreme Court found that Defendant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for counsel's failure to advise him of his right to testify and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for counsel's failure to assert on appeal that his right to self-representation was violated at trial. On remand, the district court found that Defendant was not entitled to relief. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court did not commit reversible error in denying relief on Defendant's two remaining claims. View "State v. Ely" on Justia Law