Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2021, Michael D. Davis pleaded guilty to three counts of child abuse and one count of first-degree arson. For the arson conviction, the court imposed a sentence of 20 to 20 years’ imprisonment. Davis filed a direct appeal, but the Nebraska Court of Appeals found no plain error with respect to the sentences imposed. Davis then filed a motion for postconviction relief, asserting that the sentence for arson was void because the minimum term was the same as the maximum term, violating Nebraska law.The district court agreed with Davis, ruling that the arson sentence did not comply with the statutory requirement that the minimum term be less than the maximum term, and was therefore void. The court concluded that it was necessary to resentence Davis for the arson conviction. In October 2023, the court imposed a new sentence of 19 years 11 months to 20 years’ imprisonment for the arson conviction. Davis appealed this new sentence.The Nebraska Supreme Court found that the district court erred in granting Davis' motion for postconviction relief and resentencing him. The Supreme Court held that when a sentencing court imposes an indeterminate sentence but that sentence fails to pronounce a valid minimum term, the minimum term shall be the minimum imposed by law. In this case, the law supplied a valid minimum term of 1 year’s imprisonment, so Davis’ initial sentence was not void. Therefore, the district court had no authority to modify it. The Supreme Court vacated the new sentence and dismissed the appeal. View "State v. Davis" on Justia Law

The case involves an employee, Marlene Mosher, who filed a petition against her employer, Whole Foods Market, Inc., claiming she suffered an injury from a fall during her employment. Mosher alleged that she sustained injury to her right lower extremity and right ankle and developed low-back pain. She claimed that she had suffered periods of temporary disability, required reasonable and necessary medical care, incurred mileage and expenses, and had not yet reached maximum medical improvement (MMI). Mosher also alleged that Whole Foods had failed or refused to provide those benefits, thus, she was entitled to waiting-time penalties and attorney fees.The Workers’ Compensation Court found that Mosher had not yet reached MMI and was unable to return to work without restrictions. The court awarded Mosher temporary total disability benefits, payment for medical bills, future medical care, a waiting-time penalty, and attorney fees. The court found that Whole Foods had no reasonable controversy that compensation was due, which justified a waiting-time penalty. The court also found no reasonable controversy as to medical expenses.Whole Foods appealed, arguing that there was a reasonable controversy as to whether Mosher had reached MMI and, thus, as to whether its obligations to pay temporary total disability ceased and its obligations to pay permanent disability began. Whole Foods also contested the amount of the attorney fees awarded.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court. The court held that when there is no reasonable controversy that the employee has been injured in a workplace accident and is entitled to some indemnity benefit, the employer is not excused from timely payments thereof. The court also held that the plain meaning of a “reasonable attorney’s fee” in § 48-125(4)(a) encompasses the work of a legal assistant for the attorney. View "Mosher v. Whole Foods Market" on Justia Law

The defendant, Jason Assad, was arrested and his property was seized by law enforcement. Among the seized items was a digital video recorder (DVR) that contained footage of an incident between Assad and his wife. This footage was used as evidence in his trial, where he was convicted of first degree false imprisonment, terroristic threats, use of a weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a weapon by a prohibited person. After his conviction and sentencing, Assad sought the return of his seized property, including the DVR.The District Court for Cheyenne County granted Assad's request for the return of most items, but denied the return of the DVR. The court reasoned that the state had an interest in preserving the DVR as evidence for potential future appeals or post-conviction relief efforts by Assad. The court ordered that a complete copy of the contents of the DVR be made and provided to Assad, but the original DVR would remain with the state.Assad appealed this decision to the Nebraska Supreme Court, arguing that the district court erred in denying his request to have the DVR returned to him. The Supreme Court reviewed the case for an abuse of discretion, which occurs when the court's reasons or rulings are clearly untenable and unfairly deprive a litigant of a substantial right and a just result.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion. The court noted that while future actions might be unlikely, it was not impossible that Assad might bring a postconviction action that is not time barred. The court also noted that certain types of motions for new trial are not time barred in any way, and thus, the potential for such a motion—and in turn, a possible new trial—exists as well. Therefore, the state's interest in retaining the DVR and its original contents was justified. View "State v. Assad" on Justia Law

The case involves the Perkins County Board of Equalization (the Board) and Mid America Agri Products/Wheatland Industries, LLC (Wheatland). Wheatland owns real property in Perkins County, Nebraska, which includes ethanol production facilities. In 2018, 2019, and 2020, Wheatland protested the valuations set by the Perkins County assessor on this property. The Board denied these protests and affirmed the valuations for all three tax years. Wheatland appealed the Board’s decisions to the Tax Equalization and Review Commission (TERC). TERC reversed the Board’s decisions and adopted lower valuations for each of the three tax years.The Board filed a petition for judicial review in the Nebraska Court of Appeals, alleging it was aggrieved by TERC's final decisions. The Board served summons on Wheatland more than 30 days after filing the petition, which is outside the statutory timeframe. However, before summons was served, the Board emailed a courtesy copy of the summons and petition to Wheatland’s counsel. Wheatland’s counsel then filed an appearance of counsel and a “Response to Petition for Review.”The Nebraska Supreme Court held that a voluntary appearance is not a permissible substitute for strict compliance with the statutory requirement to timely serve summons under § 77-5019(2)(b). The court noted that the Legislature has mandated service of summons as one of the jurisdictional prerequisites for judicial review of administrative decisions. Therefore, the court dismissed the matter for lack of jurisdiction. View "Perkins Cty. Bd. of Equal. v. Mid America Agri Prods." on Justia Law

The case involves Nolan M. King, who was convicted and sentenced for manslaughter and use of a deadly weapon other than a firearm to commit a felony. The incident occurred in a bar in Omaha, Nebraska, where King attacked Rodney Pettit II, causing fatal head injuries. The altercation was triggered by Pettit's interaction with King's girlfriend, Wynter Knight.The case was initially heard in the District Court for Douglas County, where King was found guilty of manslaughter and use of a deadly weapon other than a firearm to commit a felony. The court sentenced King to imprisonment for 19 years 364 days to 20 years on the manslaughter conviction and for 19 to 20 years on the use of a deadly weapon conviction, with the sentences to run consecutively.The case was then appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court. King argued that the district court erred by allowing the testimony of witnesses the State endorsed 2 weeks prior to trial, by prohibiting King from questioning the State’s witnesses about the victim’s toxicology report, and by imposing improper and excessive sentences. King also argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for use of a deadly weapon other than a firearm to commit a felony.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found no merit in King's arguments, stating that the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the endorsement of additional witnesses, and that the evidence was sufficient to support King's conviction for use of a deadly weapon other than a firearm to commit a felony. The court also found that King's sentences were not inconsistent with recent amendments to Nebraska law and were not excessive. View "State v. King" on Justia Law

This case involves a mother, Leah B., who appealed from the order of the county court for Dodge County, Nebraska, sitting as a juvenile court, denying her challenge to the validity of her relinquishment of parental rights to her child, Jordon B. Jordon was removed from Leah's care shortly after his birth in 2020 and placed into the temporary custody of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Leah relinquished her parental rights to Jordon in November 2022. The State then filed a motion to terminate Leah's parental rights based on the relinquishment, which the court granted. Leah subsequently filed a pro se motion to rescind the termination order, alleging that she signed the relinquishment involuntarily and under duress and that she was developmentally disabled and should have been appointed a guardian ad litem.The juvenile court denied Leah's motion, finding that she lacked standing to file her motion because she was no longer a party to the action after she relinquished her parental rights. The court also found that Leah's relinquishment was validly executed and that there was no evidence to demonstrate that Leah was under any duress when she signed the relinquishment.Leah appealed, arguing that the juvenile court erred in determining that she lacked standing to file her motion, in denying her motion on the merits, and in not affording her due process by ruling on the motion without providing her with a reasonable opportunity to be heard and a meaningful evidentiary hearing.The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the juvenile court's decision, finding that Leah's motion was a substantive challenge to the validity of the relinquishment of her parental rights and not a challenge to the court's order terminating her parental rights. The court held that Leah had standing to file her motion and that the court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The court also held that Leah was not provided a meaningful hearing on her motion challenging the validity of the relinquishment of her parental rights, and therefore, her due process rights were violated. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "In re Interest of Jordon B." on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between D&M Roofing and Siding, Inc. (D&M), a roofing company, and Distribution, Inc., the owner of a warehouse. D&M had entered into a contract with Distribution to repair hail damage to the roof of Distribution's warehouse. However, Distribution later decided to use a different contractor for the repairs. D&M sued Distribution for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, claiming damages based on a cancellation fee provision in the contract. The district court found that the contract was enforceable and that Distribution had breached it. However, it also found that D&M was not entitled to any damages because it had not performed any work under the contract.The district court's decision was based on D&M's admission that its breach of contract damages were limited to those under the cancellation fee provision in the contract. The court found that under the clear and unambiguous language of the provision, D&M was only entitled to a cancellation fee of 20 percent of the "work done" by D&M. Since D&M had not performed any work, it was not entitled to the cancellation fee. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Distribution on D&M's unjust enrichment claim, explaining that an enforceable contract displaces such a claim.D&M later filed a second motion for summary judgment, this time alleging lost profits as the measure of damages for the breach of contract claim. The district court construed the motion as a motion to reconsider. The court explained that even though its prior order did not use the word "dismissed," it had disposed of the whole merits of the case and left nothing for the court's further consideration. The court denied D&M's motion and granted a cross-motion by Distribution for summary judgment. D&M appealed, but the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the court had not yet issued a final order or rendered a judgment. View "D& M Roofing & Siding v. Distribution, Inc." on Justia Law

The defendant, Allen Evans, was charged with two counts of first-degree sexual abuse of a protected individual. The charges were brought after a resident of the Beatrice State Development Center reported that Evans had sexually assaulted her while he was employed with the Department of Health and Human Services. Evans pleaded no contest to both counts. The district court sentenced him to 18 to 20 years’ imprisonment for each conviction, resulting in an aggregate term of imprisonment of 36 to 40 years. The court ordered the sentences to run consecutively.Evans appealed his sentences, arguing that they were invalid because, under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 83-1,110 (Supp. 2023), he may be eligible for parole before serving his minimum term of 36 years. He contended that under the parole eligibility criteria of a recent amendment to § 83-1,110(3)(c)(iii), the maximum sentence for an aggregate sentence of 40 years cannot exceed 32 years, because 80 percent of a maximum term of 40 years is 32 years.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that § 83-1,110 concerns parole eligibility calculations and not the permissible sentencing range of the underlying sentence imposed by the trial court. The court's aggregate sentence of 36 to 40 years was valid, and the court did not need to address the correctness of the court's truth-in-sentencing advisement in light of the amendments to § 83-1,110(3)(c)(iii). The court concluded that a truth-in-sentencing advisement containing a miscalculation as to the expected parole eligibility or mandatory release date does not affect the validity of either the sentence or the plea. View "State v. Evans" on Justia Law

In this case, Asia R. Mann, now known as Asia R. Harrison, and Brian L. Mann were disputing modifications to their stipulated dissolution decree. The main issues in the case revolved around child custody, visitation, child support, and attorney fees.Prior to this case, the couple had been granted joint legal and physical custody of their two children. However, after Brian was convicted of stalking Asia, she sought sole legal and physical custody of the children. She argued that Brian's conviction constituted domestic intimate partner abuse under the Parenting Act, and as such, the court should take specific actions to protect her and the children.The Nebraska Supreme Court found that Brian's conviction for stalking did not constitute domestic intimate partner abuse under the Parenting Act, as the act requires that bodily injury be attempted, caused, or credibly threatened. The court found no evidence of this in Brian's conduct. Therefore, the court affirmed the lower court's decision to deny Asia's request for sole custody of the children.The court also found no error in the lower court's decisions regarding child support, health insurance, and attorney fees. The court affirmed the lower court's decision to allow Brian to choose between two school districts for the children's enrollment.Finally, the court affirmed the lower court's decision to vacate the portion of the dissolution decree that found Brian stood in loco parentis to Asia's child from a previous relationship, Maleah. The court found that the lower court lacked jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act to modify the California child custody judgment as to Maleah. View "Mann v. Mann" on Justia Law

The case involves a medical malpractice claim brought by Ivan J. Konsul against Juan Antonio Asensio, M.D. The claim arose from treatment Konsul received after being admitted to Creighton University Medical Center following a motor vehicle accident. Asensio, a trauma surgeon, placed an inferior vena cava filter (IVC filter) in Konsul to prevent migration of deep vein thrombosis. Konsul alleged that Asensio violated applicable standards of care in various respects, including unnecessary placement of the filter, improper location of the filter, and failing to inform Konsul of the long-term risks of the filter remaining in his body. Konsul claimed that due to Asensio's failures, the filter migrated throughout his body and became lodged behind his heart, causing physical pain, mental suffering, and additional health care costs.The case went to a jury trial. Konsul called Dr. David Dreyfuss as an expert witness to provide testimony regarding the standard of care applicable to Asensio. However, the district court ruled that Dreyfuss could not testify regarding the applicable standard of care in Omaha, as he was not familiar with the standard of care in Omaha or a similar community. Without Dreyfuss' testimony, Konsul provided no evidence of the standard of care, and the district court dismissed Konsul's case.Konsul appealed, claiming that the district court erred when it struck Dreyfuss as an expert witness and when it granted Asensio's motion for a directed verdict and dismissed the case. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that the district court did not err when it struck Dreyfuss as an expert witness and when it granted Asensio's motion for a directed verdict and dismissed Konsul's case. The court also found that any error regarding the deposition issues was harmless considering the proper dismissal of the action based on Konsul's failure to provide evidence of the standard of care. View "Konsul v. Asensio" on Justia Law