Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court in favor of Defendants in two actions brought under Nebraska's Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), Neb. Rev. Stat. 36-701 to 36-712, but reversed the court's grant of attorney fees as sanctions on the grounds that both actions were frivolous, holding that the fraudulent transfer actions lacked merit but that the district court abused its discretion in finding the actions as frivolous.The creditors here alleged that a blanket security agreement guaranteeing repayment of a loan by a wife to her husband was a fraudulent transfer under the UFTA. The district court concluded, after a trial, that there was no actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor under the UFTA and that the wife had proved good faith. The court then granted the wife attorney fees. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the award of sanctions, holding that the actions were not frivolous under Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-824; and (2) affirmed the judgments of dismissal, holding that the creditors failed to identify and prove there was any "property" at issue in these cases and thus failed to prove that there was a "transfer" under the UFTA. View "Korth v. Luther" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of attempted possession of a burglar's tools and sentence of one year in jail with credit for twenty-three days served, holding that there was no abuse of discretion in the sentence imposed.On appeal, Defendant argued that his sentence was excessive and that the district court erred by awarding him insufficient credit for time served against his jail sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err by granting Defendant only twenty-three days of credit against his one-year jail sentence; and (2) where the record demonstrated that the court considered all of the relevant sentencing factors and clearly articulated its rationale for imposing the one-year jail sentence, there was no abuse of discretion in the sentence imposed. View "State v. Harms" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences for four counts of first degree sexual assault, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not commit plain error when it admitted the DNA evidence that linked Defendant to the assaults; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it overruled Defendant's motion to remove counsel and appoint substitute counsel; and (3) regarding Defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, either the record on direct appeal showed the claim was without merit or that the record was not sufficient to review the claim. View "State v. Weathers" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal of the district court's judgment revoking Appellant's post release supervision and ordering that he serve the entirety of the time remaining on his post release supervision term in jail, holding that because Appellant had completely served his sentence, his appeal was moot.Appellant was convicted of a felony offense in one district court and multiple felony and misdemeanor offenses in another district court. Both sentences included terms of incarceration and terms of post release supervision. After Appellant served the incarceration portion of his sentences and had been released the State filed a motion in one district court alleging that he had violated the terms of his postrelease supervision. The court revoked Defendant's postrelease supervision and ordered that he serve the time remaining on his postrelease supervision in jail. On appeal, Appellant argued that the district court ordered that he serve more time in jail that was allowable by law. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Appellant's completion of the sentence rendered his appeal moot, and none of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine applied. View "State v. Roberts" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first degree murder, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting DNA analysis conducted by using TrueAllele probabilistic genotyping software over Defendant's challenges pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and Schafersman v. Agland Coop, 631 N.W.2d 862 (2001).DNA evidence presented at Defendant's jury trial linked him to the murder for which he was convicted. During the jury trial, Defendant raised Daubert/Schafersman challenges to the DNA evidence, challenging TrueAllele's methodology. The district court admitted the evidence, applying the Daubert/Schafersman analytical framework and determining that the methodology of TrueAllele probabilistic genotyping was reliable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing admission of the TrueAllele evidence. View "State v. Simmer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the district court's determinations that a portion of Husband's 401K and proceeds from an inheritance constituted nonmarital property, holding that the court did not abuse its discretion in setting off property as non marital in accordance with Husband's testimony.In reversing, the court of appeals found that Husband did not meet his burden of proving that his 401K had a value of $130,000 at the time of his marriage to Wife and did not prove the amount he inherited from his father. Husband appealed, arguing that the court of appeals erred in determining that because he offered no documentary evidence at trial to support his undisputed testimony he failed to meet his burden of proof that he had $130,000 in a 401K at the time of marriage and that he received a $60,000 inheritance during the marriage. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the court of appeals erred in determining that documentary evidence is necessary to establish a claim to non marital property and that a nonmarital value must be proved definitively; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Husband's testimony to be credible and setting off the amounts claimed as nonmarital. View "Burgardt v. Burgardt" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court overruling Appellant's motion to revive a judgment she obtained against Appellee more than two decades ago after Appellee stopped making payments, holding that the district court correctly overruled the motion for revivor on the ground that it was untimely.Appellant never executed on the judgment she obtained against Appellee, but Appellee made payments to her beginning in 1996 and ending in 2017. In 2018, Appellant filed a motion for revivor of the judgment. The district court overruled the motion as untimely, concluding that Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-216, which provides that partial payments generally toll the limitations period in contract actions, did not extend the time period for Appellant to seek reviver of a judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the judgment had become dormant and that the time period to revive it had expired. View "Nelssen v. Ritchie" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Appellant's second amended motion for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing, holding that Appellant was not entitled to postconviction relief for his constitutional claims.Appellant's constitutional claims in his motion for postconviction relief alleged that he was shackled during jury selection, the sentencing scheme requiring a judge to make factual findings to impose the death penalty was unconstitutional, and his constitutional rights were violated by the Legislature's passing a bill repealing the death penalty but a public referendum reimposing it. The district court denied postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that each of Appellant's constitutional claims failed. View "State v. Mata" on Justia Law

In this action for negligence and premises liability the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court entering summary judgment in favor of Defendant, holding that there was no evidence from which a reasonable finder of fact could infer that Plaintiff had established all the elements of his premises liability case.Peggy Williamson was injured when she fell on a curb outside the entrance to Bellevue Medical Center, LLC (BMC). There was no defect in the curb, and the curb did not violate any code or ordinance. Peggy brought this action, and after her death, the action was revived in the name of her husband, Jay Williamson (Plaintiff). The district court granted summary judgment for BMC, concluding that Plaintiff failed to produce evidence that the curb created an unreasonable danger. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that evidence existed supporting an inference that the unpainted, tapered curb posed an unreasonable risk of harm to lawful entrants, such as Peggy, who would fail to protect themselves against the danger. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that BMC carried its burden to show it was entitled to summary judgment. View "Williamson v. Bellevue Medical Center, LLC" on Justia Law

In this case disputing grandparent visitation the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Grandfather's civil contempt proceeding but vacated the court's order modifying the decree for grandparent visitation to reduce summer visitation with Grandfather, holding that the court's determination of modification as a consequence of the contempt hearing was improper due to a lack of notice and an opportunity to be heard.After the father of two children died, the paternal grandfather (Grandfather) obtained a decree for grandparent visitation. When the children later refused to visit Grandfather and Mother was unable to compel then Grandfather bought a contempt proceeding against Mother. Mother subsequently filed a complaint for modification of grandparent visitation. The district court found that Mother did not willfully and contumaciously violate the visitation decree and further dismissed the complaint for modification. The court, however, ultimately modified the decree to reduce visitation with Grandfather without holding a separate hearing on modification. The Supreme Court held (1) the district court's determination that Mother was not in contempt was not an abuse of discretion; and (2) the district court erred when it modified the decree in its order filed after the contempt hearing. View "Krejci v. Krejci" on Justia Law