Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court concluding that income taxpayers did not meet their burden of proof that they abandoned their domicile in Nebraska and acquired a domicile in the United Kingdom (U.K.), holding that competent evidence supported the district court's factual findings.The Department of Revenue issued to Appellants a notice of proposed deficiency determination for individual income tax for tax years 2012 to 2014. Appellants requested a redetermination that no money was due, claiming that the U.K. was their domicile. The Tax Commissioner determined that Appellants failed to sustain their burden of proof. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court's ultimate decision to affirm the Tax Commissioner's order was not in error. View "Houghton v. Nebraska Department of Revenue" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of violating a domestic abuse protection order, holding that the district court did not err in affirming the county court's denial of Defendant's motion for new trial.In his motion for new trial, Defendant requested that the county court vacate his conviction because of a stipulated order in his separate domestic case that purported to render the original protection order void ab initio. The county court denied the motion. The district court affirmed, concluding that the order in the domestic relations case reflected the parties’ negotiations after trial based on then-existing circumstances and was not newly discovered evidence relevant to Defendant's criminal trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no merit to Defendant's contention that the order in his domestic relations case was newly discovered evidence sufficient to warrant a new trial in the criminal case. View "State v. Bartel" on Justia Law

In these consolidated criminal appeals, the Supreme Court declined to reach the merits of Appellant's arguments and dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction, holding that Appellant's appeals were not perfected within thirty days after the entry of judgment.Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant entered no contest pleas to some charged counts relating to a string of motor vehicle thefts and high-speed police chases. The court ultimately found Appellant guilty of seven felonies. Appellant later filed a notice of appeal, challenging the overruling of his motions to modify his sentences and challenging the sentence imposed on one conviction. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that appellate jurisdiction was not perfected within thirty days of the entry of the judgment, and therefore, this Court must dismiss Appellant's appeals. View "State v. Melton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding in favor of the plaintiff subdivision in this dispute between two subdivisions, holding that the defendant subdivision's assignments of error were without merit.At issue was the cost of maintenance for a private street that connected the two subdivisions to public roads. The developers of the subdivisions adopted covenants requiring the subdivisions to share maintenance costs for the private street, but the defendant subdivision later modified its covenants to repudiate its responsibility to pay for the street's maintenance costs. The plaintiff subdivision sued and was awarded $18,733 in damages for its past due share of the street's maintenance costs. The district court also ordered the defendant subdivision to continue contributing its share of costs for the street maintenance and to not again repudiate its obligation to contribute. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the district court's judgment. View "Equestrian Ridge Homeowners Ass'n v. Equestrian Ridge Estates II Homeowners Ass'n" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the county court determining as a matter of law that testator Michael R. Brinkman's will was ambiguous with regard to the status of his daughter, Nicole Brinkman, and that Nicole was included under the will as a child, an issue, and an heir of Michael, holding that there was no error by the county court.After Michael died, Nicole sought a declaration of her rights under her father's will, claiming that she was entitled to one-half of the residual share of her father's testamentary estate. Michael's son, Seth Michael Brinkman, and the personal representative for the estate claimed that Michael had disinherited Nicole. The county court determined that the will was patently ambiguous with regard to whether Michael specifically intended to disinherit Nicole and that Nicole was entitled to inherit under the provisions of the will. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the county court correctly found that Nicole was not disinherited and that she should receive as a child, an issue, and an heir of Michael pursuant to the terms of the will. View "In re Estate of Brinkman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Court on remand appointing an employee's "Form 50" physician and clarifying that it was not ordering a review of the employee's treatment regimen, holding that the order complied with this Court's mandate.Employee injured her back in the course and scope of her employment. As part of a settlement between Employee and her employer and its insurer (collectively, Employer), Employee completed a Form 50 anticipating that Employer would pay for treatment of Employee's injuries by her Form 50 physician. Employee chose a Nebraska doctor to serve as her Form 50 physician, but when she moved to Florida, she informed Employer that she had chosen a Florida doctor as her new Form 50 physician. Employer subsequently stopped paying for Employee's treatment. The compensation court ordered Employer to pay Employee's medical bills. The Supreme Court reversed, ruling that Employer was not required to pay for Employee's Florida medical treatment because Employee had not followed the statutory procedures to change her Form 50 physician. On remand, the compensation court appointed the Florida doctor as Employee's Form 50 physician. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the compensation court did not err in its order on remand. View "Rogers v. Jack's Supper Club" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of two counts of possession of a controlled substance, holding that the district court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence found during a warrantless search of Defendant's vehicle.On appeal, Defendant argued that the State failed to meet its burden of proving that the search fell within the inventory search exception to the warrant requirement. The court of appeals disagreed, concluding that the police did not use the inventory search as pretext for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that it was not possible on the record to determine whether the search was conducted in conformity with Omaha Police Department's standardized procedures governing inventory searches; and (2) therefore, the State failed to meet its burden to show that the search fell within the inventory search exception. View "State v. Briggs" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court approving the Dodge County Board of Adjustment's grant of variance for a 4-H pigpen built in violation of county setback requirements, holding that competent evidence supported the district court's factual findings and that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in approving the variance.The variance was based on, within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. 23-168.03(1)(c), peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional and undue hardships. In affirming the Board's decision to grant a variance, the district court found that the Board's decision was reasonable, well considered, and within the Board's discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not make an error of law or abuse its discretion in determining that the narrowness or shape of the property resulted in sufficient hardship to justify upholding the Board's decision to grant the variance. View "Dolezal-Soukup v. Dodge County Board of Adjustment" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court finding that E. Jane Egan lacked standing to challenge the Lancaster County Board of Commissioners' issuance of a special use permit allowing Randy Essink to construct and operate a poultry production facility on land within the county's agricultural zoning district and that the permit was appropriately issued, holding that the district court did not err.Egan and Janis Howlett challenged the Board's decision in the district court, asserting that the proposed poultry production facility would lead to adverse effects on the environment, properly values, public health, and local infrastructure. The district court affirmed the issuance of the special use permit, concluding that Egan did not have standing and that the permit was appropriately issued. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by failing to find that Egan had standing and finding that the special use permit was properly approved. View "Egan v. County of Lancaster" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the district court's order denying Timothy Grothen's application for modification of his alimony obligation in the decree dissolving his marriage to Martha Grothen, holding that the court of appeals reached the correct result when it affirmed the denial of modification of alimony.In affirming the district court's order denying modification, the court of appeals concluded that because the original alimony award was agreed upon by the parties as part of a property settlement agreement, the alimony provision could not be modified in the absence of gross inequity or fraud. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly used the "good cause" standard set out in Neb. Rev. Stat. 42-365 and correctly determined that, under that standard, modification was not appropriate; and (2) the court of appeals erroneously review the district court's decision under a gross inequity standard but nevertheless reached the correct result when it affirmed the denial of modification of alimony. View "Grothen v. Grothen" on Justia Law