Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of multiple counts of sexual assault of a child and child abuse, holding that the district court did not err in admitting prior sexual assault evidence.Defendant was convicted of sexually assaulting and abusing his adopted daughter. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the district court erred in admitting evidence of a prior sexual assault allegedly committed by Defendant against another adopted daughter because Defendant was acquitted in that case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in allowing the State to present the evidence of prior sexual assault where at least some of those assaults were alleged to have been committed by Defendant in other jurisdictions; and (2) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his remaining allegations of error. View "State v. Lierman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the juvenile court terminating Father's parental rights to his minor child, holding that the juvenile court did not deny Father procedural due process and did not err when it determined that terminating Father's parental rights to the child was appropriate under Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-292(2) and (7) and was in the best interests of the child.The juvenile court terminated Father's parental rights to his child on three statutory bases. Father appealed, arguing that his procedural due process rights were violated and that the juvenile court erred when it terminated his parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Father was not denied procedural due process rights at the termination hearing; and (2) there was support in the record establishing grounds for termination under section 43-292(2) and (7) and the evidence demonstrated that termination of Father's parental rights was in the best interests of the child. View "In re Interest of Taeson D." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part Defendant's convictions and sentences for burglary, conspiracy to commit burglary, and theft involving a truck, a trailer, and several tools from a garage, holding that Defendant's convictions and sentences pursuant to counts III and IV of the State's amended information, which each asserted a separate offense of theft by unlawful taking ($5,000 or more) violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.Specifically, the Court held (1) two of Defendant's three convictions and sentences for theft by unlawful taking ($5,000 or more) based on the theft of tools from the garage must be vacated because allowing three convictions for the same offense is a clear violation of both the Nebraska and United States Constitutions; (2) the trial court did not err by excluding defense witnesses who were not disclosed by counsel until five days before trial; (3) Defendant's assertion relating to his attorney's generalized failure to communicate with Defendant while preparing for trial were unavailing; and (4) there was either no merit to Defendant's remaining claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or the record was insufficient for the Court to address the claims. View "State v. Sierra" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff's employer's insurance broker and insurer and dismissing Plaintiff's action claiming that the broker had a duty to advise the employer to obtain workers' compensation insurance and that the insurer had a duty to defend the employer in the underlying action, holding that the district court did not err.Plaintiff was injured in an accident during the course and scope of his employement. Plaintiff reached a settlement with his employer and received an assignment of rights against his employer's insurance broker and insurer. Plaintiff then brought this action. The district court concluded that both the broker and the insurer were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) applying case law applicable to insurance agents rather than insurance brokers; (2) finding that the broker fulfilled its duties as an insurance broker to the employer; and (3) finding that the insurer did not owe a duty to defend the insurer. View "Merrick v. Fischer, Rounds & Associates, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for violating a domestic abuse protection order, holding that there was sufficient evidence that Defendant was personally served with the protection order.On appeal, Defendant argued that his conviction must be reversed because the service return the State introduced at trial did not specifically state that Defendant was served with the protection order he allegedly violated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) in cases alleging a violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 42-924(4), in which the defendant does not receive the notice described in Neb. Rev. Stat. 42-926(2), the State must demonstrate that the defendant was personally served with the protection order; (2) the State in this case was required to demonstrate that Defendant was personally served with the order affirming the protection order; and (3) there was sufficient evidence of such service. View "State v. Gomez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed as modified the district court's confirmation of an arbitration award of almost $3 million under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and awarding attorney fees as a sanction under Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-824, holding that no grounds existed for vacating or modifying the award, and therefore, the parties were bound by their agreement to arbitrate and the arbitrator's construction of that agreement.The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's confirmation of the arbitration award and the denial of Appellants' motions to vacate and/or modify the award, holding (1) the district court did not err in confirming the arbitration award and denying the motions to vacate and/or modify the award; (2) the district court did not err by denying a motion to supplement the record; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees; and (4) the court did not err in awarding sanctions. View "Seldin v. Estate of Silverman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court declining to make specific findings of fact for purposes of special immigrant juvenile (SIJ) status under federal law after rendering judgment dissolving the marriage of Mother and Father and awarding full custody of the parties' child to Mother, holding that the court had the authority to make these findings.After the court made an oral pronouncement granting the parties' divorce and awarding custody to Mother, it signed a decree that included findings sought regarding abuse, neglect, or abandonment and best interests of the child. The court, however, struck through those findings and therefore did not make the findings requested by Mother, concluding that it lacked the authority to make the requested findings. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in not making the findings of fact requested by Mother because the court had the jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination and to make the requested findings. View "Sabino v. Ozuna" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal from a district court order finding Defendant indigent and entitled to court-appointed appellate counsel at the expense of Washington County, holding that the court's order was neither a judgment nor a final, appealable order.On appeal, the State argued that the district court abused its discretion in finding Defendant indigent and entitled to court-appointed appellate counsel because Defendant failed adequately to provide his financial situation, acquired undisclosed additional funds during the pendency of the underlying action, and had sufficient assets to pay for his legal counsel. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the district court's order was not a judgment or a final, appealable order. View "State v. Fredrickson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed these consolidated appeals in which Appellants argued that the county court erred by concluding it lacked jurisdiction to decide motions to transfer their felony criminal cases to juvenile court, holding that the county court lacked jurisdiction, and therefore, the Supreme Court also lacked jurisdiction.The State filed complaints in county court charging Appellants with felonies. Appellants filed motions asking the county court to transfer their respective cases to juvenile court. In both cases, the county court issued orders stating that it did not have jurisdiction to rule on a motion to transfer to juvenile court. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the county court correctly found that it lacked jurisdiction over Appellants' motions to transfer to juvenile court; and (2) because the county court lacked jurisdiction over the motions to transfer, this Court lacked jurisdiction over these appeals. View "State v. A.D." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences, holding that Defendant's assignment of error related to excessive sentences of incarceration was moot and that the district court did not err in calculating time served and the order of costs and restitution as part of the sentences.Defendant pleaded guilty to misdemeanors related to the unauthorized use of a third-party's financial accounts and the misuse of the party's credit cards. The plea agreement included restitution to the businesses defrauded by the transactions, as well as restitution to the third-party. After the pleas were entered but before sentencing Defendant absconded to Oregon for almost eight years. Defendant was eventually arrested in Oregon, extradited to Nebraska, and sentenced. On appeal, Defendant claimed her sentences were excessive and that the court erred in its calculation of credit for time served and in failing to consider her inability to pay the restitution and costs ordered as part of her sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Defendant completed serving the sentences, her assignment of error alleging excessive sentences was moot; and (2) Defendant's remaining assignments of error were without unavailing. View "State v. McCulley" on Justia Law