Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Appellant's third motion for post conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing, holding that there was no merit to Appellant's claims on appeal.Defendant was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and other felony offenses and sentenced to death. In his third postconviction motion, Defendant alleged that the Legislature's statute providing for the repeal of the death penalty, 2015 Neb. Laws, L.B. 268, changed his death sentence to life imprisonment and that the rejection of L.B. 268 by public referendum imposed a death sentence, the referendum was constitutionally impermissible, and he was harmed thereby. The district court concluded that Defendant failed to allege sufficient facts that demonstrated a violation of his constitutional rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying postconviction relief. View "State v. Torres" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the juvenile court declining to adjudicate a newborn that reportedly tested positive for methamphetamine on the grounds that the State failed to prove that he was at risk of harm, holding that the evidence demonstrated that the newborn lacked proper parental care due to his mother's fault or habits.The State sought to adjudicate the newborn, who had been in a hospital with Mother, and his two siblings, who lived with and received appropriate care from their grandmother, solely on the basis that the children lacked proper parental care. The juvenile court declined to adjudicate the children. The Supreme Court affirmed the juvenile court's decision as to the older siblings because they did not lack proper parental care but reversed as to the newborn, holding that the newborn lacked proper parental care, as demonstrated by Mother's drug use during pregnancy until the time of his birth. View "In re Interest of Jeremy U." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court determining that a tax deed obtained by Adair Holdings, LLC was void for incorrect notice and granting the counterclaim for quiet title filed by Dennis G. Johnson, the owner of record, holding that summary judgment in favor of Johnson's counterclaim was proper and that equity did not require relief to be granted to Adair Holdings.Adair Holdings' predecessor in interest attempted to provide Johnson with notice of the application for a tax deed via certified mail and then by publication. The notice, however, contained incorrect information about the timeframe in which Johnson could redeem the property. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Johnson and did not order Johnson to reimburse Adair Holdings for the delinquent taxes paid by Adair Holdings' predecessor in interest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly determined as a matter of law that the tax deed issued to Adair Management was void; (2) the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for Johnson on his quiet title claim; and (3) because Adair Holdings did not raise below the issue of recovery for payment of delinquent taxes, equity did not require that relief be granted. View "Adair Holdings, LLC v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motions for DNA testing and appointment of counsel, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motions because Defendant did not demonstrate that DNA testing may produce noncumulative, exculpatory evidence.Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. The Supreme Court affirmed. Defendant later filed a motion for DNA testing and requested that counsel be appointed to represent him. The district court denied the motions, determining that Defendant failed to show such testing may produce noncumulative, exculpatory evidence relevant to the claim that he was wrongfully convicted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motions for DNA testing and appointment of counsel. View "State v. Ildefonso" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court affirming Defendant's convictions and sentences, holding that the district court did not err when it rejected each of Defendant's contentions regarding his sentences.Defendant was convicted in the county court of twenty-one misdemeanor counts of violating a protection order and sentenced to county jail for 180 days on each count, to be served consecutively. Defendant appealed, arguing that his sentences were excessive, disproportionate, and invalid. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no plain error when the county court did not announce at the sentencing hearing where Defendant's sentences would be served; (2) Defendant's individual sentences were not grossly disproportionate; and (3) the district court did not err when it affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences. View "State v. Becker" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court sustained the State's exception to the order of the district court dismissing the State's appeal in this criminal case, holding that the county court erred in directing a verdict in favor of Defendant at the close of the State's case in chief under a complaint for first degree trespass.Defendant had received a "stay away" letter intended to apply to businesses owned by the parent company issuing the letter, including two businesses owned by the same company and located in the same building where Defendant entered during business hours and exited when told to leave. The county court apparently concluded that the affirmative defense to criminal trespass did not encompass compliance with a "stay away" letter directed toward Defendant. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court sustained the State's exception to the district court's order, holding (1) Defendant did not comply with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises for purposes of the "open to the public" affirmative defense set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-522; and (2) there was no legal basis for granting a directed verdict in Defendant's favor. View "State v. Stanko" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of first degree sexual assault, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Defendant was eighteen years old when he had sex with the victim, who was ten years old. At issue on appeal were several rulings by the district court relating to the knowledge element of the statute and whether age could be a factor in the jury's determination of capacity under Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-319(1)(b). The Supreme Court held (1) the trial court properly instructed the jury; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support a determination that the victim was incapable of consent by virtue of her stage of development; (3) the trial court did not err by admitting hearsay testimony regarding the fact that the victim was diagnosed with ADHD, ODD, and DMDD; (5) the trial court did not err by excluding evidence of the victim’s other sexual conduct; (6) the trial court properly denied Defendant's motion for a new trial; and (7) the sentence imposed was not excessive. View "State v. Dady" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the Tax Equalization and Review Commission (TERC), which reduced the county's $16.3 million valuation of commercial real estate used as an ethanol plant to $7.3 million based upon the taxpayer's appraisal, holding that there was no error appearing on the record.The original $16.3 million valuation in this case was based upon mass appraisal techniques. TERC reduced the value based upon the appraisal of the taxpayer, finding that because the appraiser performed the appraisal according to professional approved standards his appraisal report was competent evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption in favor of the Board of Equalization's determination affirming the county assessor's valuation of the property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that TERC's determination that the Board's valuation was unreasonable and arbitrary was supported by competent evidence and was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. View "Wheatland Industries v. Perkins County Board of Equalization" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Workers' Compensation Court awarding temporary total disability and attorney fees to Suzy Fentress, holding that the compensation court did not err.Fentress received a workplace injury while working for Westin, Inc. The compensation court entered an award in which Fentress received temporary partial workers' compensation benefits. Westin later moved to terminate the temporary indemnity benefits and to determine maximum medical improvement (MMI) and permanency. After the compensation court held an evidentiary hearing to determine MMI Westin moved to withdraw its motion to determine MMI. The compensation court disallowed the withdrawal of the motion and, thereafter, awarded temporary total disability and attorney fees to Fentress. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the compensation court did not err when it (1) overruled Westin's motion to withdraw its motion to determine MMI; (2) admitted certain evidence during the hearing; (3) found that Fentress had achieved MMI with respect to mental health issues but not physical health issues; and (4) awarded Fentress medical treatment, temporary total disability, and attorney fees. View "Fentress v. Westin, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the Workers' Compensation Court ordering Jack's Supper Club and its workers' compensation carrier (collectively, JSC) to reimburse Sheryl Rogers for medical expenses she incurred, holding that where Rogers selected the physicians who provided the treatment at issue in disregard of provisions of the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act, JSC was not responsible to reimburse Rogers.Rogers injured her back while working for JSC. The compensation court approved a lump-sum settlement, and JSC remained responsible to pay Rogers for reasonable and necessary medical care for her work-related injury. After Rogers received treatment she asked that the compensation court order JSC to reimburse her. The JSC argued that it was not responsible for the medical expenses because Rogers failed to comply with Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-120(2), a statute governing selection of treating physicians. The compensation court rejected the JSC's arguments and ordered JSC to pay certain bills offered by Rogers. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the compensation court erred in ordering JSC to reimburse Rogers for her treatment and by issuing a decision that did not comply with Workers' Comp. Ct. R. of Proc. 11. View "Rogers v. Jack's Supper Club" on Justia Law