Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant to first degree felony murder and use of a firearm to commit a felony, holding that there was no merit to Defendant's claims on appeal.On appeal, Defendant raised claims regarding the admission fo controlled substance and firearm evidence, the termination of a witness' deposition, sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in overruling Defendant's motions in limine and in admitting evidence of controlled substances from Defendant's home and evidence of a firearm; (2) the admission of a single reference to "multiple packages of marijuana" was, at most, harmless error; (3) the evidence supported Defendant's convictions; and (4) the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel reached on direct appeal lacked merit. View "State v. Devers" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court affirming the revocation of Appellant's motor vehicle operator's license for refusing to submit to a chemical test of his breath, holding that the district court's decision was not contrary to law and was supported by competent evidence.On appeal, Appellant argued that the district court erred in failing to find that the requirements for revocation of his driver's license were not satisfied. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the district court applied the correct legal framework; and (2) the district court's decision that Appellant failed to carry his burden to show that he took the chemical test was supported by competent evidence. View "Travis v. Lahm" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court awarding joint legal and physical custody of J.F. to Sara P., Tyler F., and Geoffrey V., holding that the district court committed plain error in considering Geoffrey's paternity complaint while failing to give proper legal effect to Tyler's acknowledgment of paternity.Sara gave birth to J.F. and represented to Tyler that he was J.F.'s father. Tyler signed an acknowledgment of paternity when J.F. was born. Tyler later filed a complaint to establish paternity, custody, and parenting time seeking joint legal and physical custody of J.F. After a DNA test excluded Tyler as the biological father, Geoffrey filed a complaint to establish paternity seeking that physical and legal custody be placed with Sara subject to his and Tyler's visitation rights. After the case was remanded, the district court awarded legal and physical custody of J.F. until the end of that year, at which time all three parties were awarded joint legal and physical custody. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the district court committed plain error in considering Geoffrey's complaint to establish his paternity of J.F. when Tyler's acknowledgment remained in place and established Tyler as J.F.'s father. View "Tyler F. v. Sara P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the restitution component of Defendant's sentence, holding that the county court did not abuse its discretion in ordering restitution, but remanded the matter with directions to modify the written judgment to conform to the pronounced sentence.Defendant was convicted of leaving the scene of an accident and reckless driving after crashing into the victim's unoccupied vehicle and fleeing the scene by foot. The county court ordered restitution in the amount of $10,347, the cost of repairing the vehicle. The district court affirmed. Defendant appealed, arguing the district court erred in affirming the restitution order because there was insufficient evidence of actual damages to warrant the restitution and because he was not capable of paying the restitution ordered. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed and remanded the case, holding (1) the county court did not abuse its discretion in its calculation of the amount of the victim's "actual damages"; (2) the county court did not abuse its discretion in its consideration of Defendant's ability to pay the sentence of restitution; and (3) there was plain error in the county court's failure to conform the written judgment to the pronounced judgment. View "State v. Street" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the juvenile court granting the State's complaint seeking to disestablish the paternity of Aaron S. to a child born during his marriage to the child's mother and to establish paternity in another man, holding that the State was not statutorily authorized to bring the action.After genetic testing showed that Ian K. was the child's biological father the State filed a complaint seeking to establish Ian's paternity. A trial was held, and at the conclusion of the evidence the State asked the court to disestablish Aaron, the husband of the child's mother, as the child's legal father and to establish Ian as the child's father so he could effectively relinquish his rights. The juvenile court entered an order which purported to disestablish Aaron as the child's biological father and to establish Ian's as the child's father. The Supreme Court vacated the order, holding that because the child was not born out of wedlock and was the legitimate child of Aaron, the State lacked statutory authority to bring this paternity action under Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-1411. View "State ex rel. Miah S. v. Ian K." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the juvenile court terminating the parental rights of Samantha H. to her minor child, Noah C., holding that the juvenile court did not err when it denied Samantha's motion to continue the termination and when it found that termination was in the best interests of Noah.After a termination hearing, the district court entered a written order finding that sufficient evidence was presented to demonstrate clearly and convincingly that termination of parental rights was appropriate under Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-292(7) and in the best interests of Noah. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Samantha's motion for a continuance; and (2) it was shown by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Samantha's parental rights would be in Noah's best interests. View "In re Interest of Noah C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dissolving the marriage of Tammy Doerr and Brian Doerr, holding that the district court did not err in its division of the marital estate.On appeal, Brian challenged the district court's decision to award half of the proceeds from what he claimed was his separate property to Tammy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in awarding roughly half of the equity of the parties' home on Howard Street in Fremont to Tammy; (2) did not err in its division of the parties' bank accounts; (3) did not err by not equally dividing the marital debt comprising a credit card balance and a bill for preseparation renovations; and (4) did not err calculating the amount of the equalization payment. View "Doerr v. Doerr" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences for second degree murder and use of a weapon to commit a felony, holding that there was no abuse in the trial proceedings.Specifically, the Court held (1) any error in the admission of statements Defendant made during two interviews was harmless, and the district court did not err when it overruled Defendant's motion to suppress a letter to his sister; (2) the district court did not err when it overruled Defendant's motion to suppress evidence from the search of his cell phone; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it prohibited Defendant from presenting evidence regarding the victim’s mental health and use of alcohol and prescription drugs; (4) the district court did not err when it denied Defendant the right to cross-examine a witness on issues the court determined to lack probative value; and (5) the district court did not err when it allowed evidence that results of certain DNA tests were uninterpretable. View "State v. Said" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals affirming the Nebraska Worker's Compensation Court's awards for injuries suffered by Halina Picard in two separate accidents, holding that the court of appeals correctly found that the doctrine of apportionment did not apply but erred in affirming the award of benefits for Picard's 2015 accident and injury.In 2016, Picard filed claims against P & C Group 1, Inc. relating to industrial injuries she received in 2012 and 2015. The compensation court determined that Picard was entitled to an award for a whole body injury based on both injuries, that apportionment was not appropriate, and that Picard was entitled to attorney fees. The court of appeals affirmed the awards for Picard's 2012 and 2015 injuries and reversed the attorney fees award. The Supreme Court reversed Picard's award of benefits for the 2015 injury, holding that the court of appeals (1) did not err in vacating Picard's attorney fees award; (2) did not err in finding that apportionment was inapplicable and determining that Picard's second injury award should not be apportioned with the first; and (3) erred in disregarding Picard's disability from the 2012 accident when assessing her lost earnings from the 2015 injury. View "Picard v. P & C Group 1, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Workers' Compensation Court (WCC) dismissing Plaintiff's workers' compensation claim against Ismael Huerta and LFA Inc. because Plaintiff failed to prove he was an employee of Huerta, holding that the WCC did not clearly err in its determination that Plaintiff was not an employee of Huerta.Plaintiff was working on a roofing job with Huerta when he slipped and fell from the roof. Plaintiff brought a claim against Huerta and LFA, claiming that Huerta was his employer and that Huerta and LFA conducted a scheme to avoid liability under the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act. The WCC dismissed the action, finding that Plaintiff failed to carry his burden of demonstrating that he was Huerta's employee. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the WCC did not err in concluding that Plaintiff failed to prove his employee status. View "Aboytes-Mosqueda v. LFA Inc." on Justia Law