Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court dismissed Defendant's appeal of her sentence of probation stemming from her conviction of one count of possession of a controlled substance, holding that the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear this matter.A jury found Defendant guilty of one count of possession of a controlled substance. On March 17, 2020, the district court sentenced Defendant to one year of probation. On March 20, 2020, the court entered an amended order of probation allowing Defendant to reside in Kansas instead of Nebraska. The rest of the March 17 sentencing order remained in effect. On appeal, Defendant argued that she received ineffective assistance of counsel when her trial counsel failed to timely appeal from the March 17 sentencing order. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that there was no proper, timely appeal in this case. View "State v. Reames" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences for five counts of robbery, five counts of use of a weapon to commit a felony, one count of second-degree assault, and one count of attempted escape, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his assignments of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err when it overruled Defendant's motion to suppress statements he made while in custody; (2) the district court did not err in overruling Defendant's motion to suppress evidence of witness identifications from photographic lineups; (3) there was sufficient evidence to support the district court's finding that Defendant failed to prove the insanity defense; and (4) Defendant's sentences were not excessive. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of marijuana, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress.In his suppression motion, Defendant sought to suppress evidence found in his vehicle during a felony traffic stop. The stop was initiated based on law enforcement's belief that Defendant's vehicle matched the description in a police bulletin of a vehicle used in a shooting committed three days prior. In his motion to suppress, Defendant argued that the police bulletin was insufficient to justify the traffic stop. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of the suppression motion, holding (1) the felony traffic stop was a tier-two police-citizen encounter; and (2) the law enforcement officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop of Defendant's vehicle based on the police bulletin alone. View "State v. Thomas" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court finding that there was good cause to extend or continue a harassment protection order against Defendant, holding that Defendant's assignments of error were without merit.On February 3, 2020, Plaintiff sought a harassment protection order from the district court. After an ex parte order was issued a hearing was held on whether the ex parte order should be continued. The trial court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss and continued the harassment protection order until one year from the date of the original order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in (1) finding sufficient support to order the ex parte harassment protection order; and (2) denying Defendant's request to stay the show cause hearing. View "Hawkins v. Delgado" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of driving under the influence, second offense, and speeding and operating a vehicle without a driver's license, holding that the Court could not consider Defendant's assignment of error that implicitly challenged the constitutionality of Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-2705.Section 25-2705 prohibits jury trials for criminal cases arising under city ordinances. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred when it failed to found that the county court had violated his right to a jury trial. The Noting that Defendant's appeal inextricably involved an implied challenge to the constitutionality of a statute, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Court could not reach the merits of Defendant's appeal because he failed to provide notice as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. 2-109(E). View "State v. Catlin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Douglas County and dismissing Plaintiff's suit brought under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (PSTCA), Neb. Rev. Stat. 13-901 to 13-928, holding that dismissal was proper on grounds of sovereign immunity.Plaintiff was held hostage and sexually assaulted by a former boyfriend. In her personal injury complaint, Plaintiff alleged that the County mishandled a series of 911 calls and, consequently, emergency personnel did not arrive in time to prevent or stop the sexual assault. The district court found that the County owed no legal duty to Plaintiff and dismissed the case. The Supreme Court affirmed but on different grounds, holding that Plaintiff's negligence claim against the County fell within the exemption from the PSTCA "[a]ny claim arising out of assault." View "Edwards v. Douglas County" on Justia Law

In this estate settlement action, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the county court's dismissal of Matthew Larson's objection to a proposed schedule of distribution, holding that this Court lacked jurisdiction to address Matthew's assigned errors.Cindy Svoboda, in her capacity as personal representative of the estate of Blain Larson, filed a petition for complete settlement of the estate asking the county court to enter an order approving her final accounting and directing that she distribute assets of the estate in accordance with a proposed schedule of distribution. Matthew, Blain's son, objected to the proposed schedule of distribution, alleging that the schedule of distribution failed properly to apportion inheritance taxes. The county court dismissed the objection. Matthew appealed, assigning that the county court erred in dismissing his objection. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Matthew did not appeal from a final order, and therefore, this Court lacked jurisdiction. View "In re Estate of Larson" on Justia Law

In this case stemming from a fire that destroyed part of the Old Market area in Omaha the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding that the Metropolitan Utilities District (MUD) was not immune from suit and denying MUD's motion for summary judgment, holding that there was no merit to MUD's assignments of error.Multiple lawsuits were initiated as a result of the damage caused by the fire. After various settlements, MUD was the only remaining defendant involved in these consolidated appeals. Plaintiffs alleged that MUD failed properly to mark a gas line, failed to timely shut off the gas at the scene of the fire, and failed properly to abandon an old gas line. MUD filed a motion to dismiss in each case, arguing that it was immune from suit on the basis of the discretionary function exception to the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (PSTCA). The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that MUD was not immune from suit under the discretionary function exception to the PSTCA. View "Mercer v. North Central Service, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the county court disallowing a claim filed by the Nebraska Department of Revenue for unpaid lifetime Nebraska income taxes and remanded the cause for further proceedings, holding that the county court failed to impose the burden of proof regarding diligent investigation and inquiry on the personal representative of the decedent's estate.The Department filed a claim with Miranda Loder, the personal representative of the decedent's estate, seeking individual income taxes for the three years preceding the decedent's death. Miranda disallowed the claim, claiming that it was untimely. The Department filed a petition with the county court for allowance of the claim, arguing that because it did not receive notice in compliance with Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-520.02 and 30-2483 it retained the right to file a claim within three years of the decedent's death under Neb. Rev. Stat. 30-2485(a)(2). At issue was whether the Department qualified as a known creditor, to whom Miranda was required to mail notice. The county court sustained Miranda's disallowance. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding that the court's decision did not conform to the law because the court did not examine whether Miranda established that the Department's potential claim was not ascertainable by reasonably diligent inquiry. View "In re Estate of Loder" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed an order of modification, holding that Appellant was not entitled to assign error to a consent judgment that reflected her negotiated agreement and that was entered at her request.In 2010, the parties' marriage was dissolved by the district court. Appellant was awarded sole legal and physical custody of the parties' two minor children, and Appellee was ordered to pay monthly child support. The decree was subsequently modified to approve a downward deviation in Appellee's child support. In 2016, the district court entered a stipulated order of modification approving the parties' agreement to increase the amount of Appellee's monthly child support obligation but continuing the existing downward deviation. In 2019, Appellant filed the current complaint to modify requesting that the downward deviation in child support be eliminated. The court entered an order of modification reflecting an agreement of the parties. Appellant appealed, arguing that the court erred in determining that Appellee was still entitled to a downward deviation in his child support obligation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the order of modification approved the parties' agreement on the disputed issues it was, in all respects, a consent judgment entered at the request of the parties, and therefore, Appellant could not complain of error on appeal. View "Mahlendorf v. Mahlendorf" on Justia Law