Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of dissolution in this case, holding that the district court did not err in awarding Wife alimony and an equalization payment and in equally dividing student loans for the parties' children.After the district court entered its judgment Husband timely filed a motion to alter the judgment or alternatively, for a new trial, arguing that the district court erred in awarding Wife alimony, awarding Wife a $53,200 equalization payment, and classifying the student loans incurred for the parties' adult children as marital debt subject to equal division. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the alimony award was not unreasonable; (2) the equalization payment was not an abuse of discretion; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in classifying the student loans incurred for the parties' children as marital debt that was to be equally divided between the parties. View "Radmanesh v. Radmanesh" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Plaintiff's complaint against the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (DCS) and three of its officials regarding computation of Plaintiff's tentative mandatory release date (TRD), holding that there was no error.Plaintiff, an inmate, filed an action for declaratory judgment alleging that DCS was responsible for actions infringing on her constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by concluding that her TRD was consistent with Nebraska statutes and case law. The district court dismissed the case for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted under 42 U.S.C. 1983; and (2) the trial court lacked jurisdiction under Neb. Rev. Stat. 84-911 for Plaintiff's claims against DCS. View "Williams v. Frakes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court overruling Defendant's motion to suppress and convicting her of possession of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia following a stipulated bench trial, holding that the district court did not err when it overruled Defendant's motion to suppress.In denying Defendant's suppression motion, the trial court concluded that Defendant consented to a search of her vehicle, in which certain illegal items were found, and that a subsequent search of Defendant's person occurred incident to a valid arrest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) probable cause existed to arrest Defendant, and the subsequent search of her person occurred incident to a valid arrest; and (2) Defendant was not entitled to relief on her remaining allegations of error. View "State v. Hammond" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court denying Appellant's motion to intervene in a suit involving her husband's estate, holding that Appellant had a direct and legal interest in the litigation sufficient to support intervention under Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-238.Appellant was appointed to serve as personal representative of her deceased husband's estate. In that capacity, Appellant filed suit against the estate of her husband's brother. Thereafter, a special administrator was appointed to administer the estate of Appellant's husband, and the administrator advanced this litigation. Appellant subsequently filed a motion to intervene in this suit in her individual capacity. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Appellant had a direct and legal interest in the litigation and was entitled to intervene. View "Harchelroad v. Harchelroad" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the State in this action brought by Plaintiff alleging that his injuries were proximately caused by the negligence of a state employee, holding that the State was immune based on the recreational activity exemption to the State's waiver of sovereign immunity.Plaintiff was sitting at a table in a State-owned recreation area when a park superintendent started mowing wet grass in the area with a riding lawnmower. The mower slipped on the grass, slid down a slope, and collided with the picnic table, throwing Plaintiff from the table and causing him to suffer injuries. Plaintiff brought a negligence lawsuit against the State. The district court granted summary judgment for the state, concluding that both the recreational activity and weather conditions exemptions in the State Tort Claims Act (STCA) applied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment based on the STCA's weather conditions exemption. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the determination of the director of the Department of Natural Resources that each purported objector to an application seeking an interbasin transfer to divert surface water from an over-appropriated Platte River reach to the Republican River Basin, holding that the purported objectors lacked standing.Several objector entities filed objectives to the operative application, but the director dismissed all of those entities for lack of standing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) to have standing in this surface water appropriation case Appellants were required to meet the common-law standard; and (2) because Appellants' allegations did not demonstrate that they had or will suffer an injury in fact each failed to establish standing. View "In re Application A-19594" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment after determining that Plaintiff's claim for underinsured motorist benefits against American Family Insurance Company was time-barred, holding that Plaintiff's action was untimely.Plaintiff sought underinsured motorist benefits against American Family Insurance Policy, but the district court determined that the action was barred by a two-year limitation provision in the insurance policy. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of American Family. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly found that Plaintiff's action was untimely. View "Rose v. American Family Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Defendant's lawsuit under the State Tort Claims Act (STCA), Neb. Rev. Stat. 81-8,209 to 81-8,235, based on a finding that Defendant's action was barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion, holding that claim preclusion applied.Defendant, an inmate, filed two cases against the State under the STCA. The district court entered two judgments. One judgment dismissed the first action with prejudice as barred by the STCA's statute of limitations and the other dismissed the second action with prejudice because Defendant had failed to comply with the preset claim presentment provisions of the STCA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly dismissed the second action as barred by claim preclusion because Defendant could have, and should have, brought all of his claims in the first action but failed to do so. View "Saylor v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of misdemeanor shoplifting and her sentence of a $100 fine, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on her allegations of error.On appeal, Defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to sustain her conviction and that the county court erred in allowing inadmissible hearsay testimony regarding an out-of-court statement. The district court affirmed, holding, among other things, that the hearsay statement was properly admitted under the hearsay exception in Neb. Rev. Stat. 27-803(1). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in overruling Defendant's hearsay exception and allowing the disputed testimony; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction. View "State v. Reznicek" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Appellant's plea in bar alleging that a trial on the pending charges for violations of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act would subject him to Double Jeopardy, holding that forfeiture under Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-431, as amended in 2016, is civil in nature, and therefore, the district court did not err in denying the plea in bar.In his plea in bar, Appellant argued that he was already criminally punished for the same crime in a separate forfeiture action brought pursuant to section 28-431. In denying the plea in bar, the district court concluded that Appellant had failed to demonstrate he was punished by the forfeiture. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the sanction imposed by forfeiture under section 28-431 is civil and not criminal for purposes of a double jeopardy analysis. View "State v. Dolinar" on Justia Law