Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's denial of Father's motion to modify custody of a minor child after the child reported that her stepfather was sexually abusing her, holding that the court made an error law in finding that there was no competent evidence of sexual abuse by the stepfather.The district court ultimately concluded that Father had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the stepfather had sexually abused the minor child. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) applied the correct standard of proof; (2) did not abuse its discretion in its determination of the scope and meaning of Father's complaint; but (3) abused its discretion when it failed to grant Father's motion to modify the custody decree because the record clearly showed there was competent evidence adduced that, if believed, tended to establish that the child was sexually abused by her stepfather. View "Eric H. v. Ashley H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court granting Prospect Funding Holdings, LLC's (Prospect) motions to confirm arbitration awards and for summary judgment in this interpleader action, holding that when Prospect moved to confirm the arbitration awards under section 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 1 through 16, the district court was required by the FAA to do so.After selling an interest in her personal injury claim to Prospect, Edrie Wheat settled her claim. When a dispute arose over the amount due Prospect, Prospect initiated arbitration proceedings against Wheat and Ronald J. Palagi, P.C., LLC (Palagi), the law firm representing Wheat. Awards were eventually entered against Wheat and Palagi in favor of Prospect. Wheat and Palagi then brought this interpleader action but did not seek to vacate, modify, or correct the arbitration awards. The district court granted Prospect's motion to confirm the arbitration awards and also granted Prospect's motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) summary judgment was not premature; and (2) the district court did not err in failing to find the agreement was invalid and unenforceable. View "Ronald J. Palagi, P.C. v. Prospect Funding Holdings" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order dismissing Tenants' first cause of action against Landlord under the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (URLTA) but reversed as to Tenants' second, third, and fourth causes of action, holding that the complaint stated plausible claims for relief under Neb. Rev. Stat. 76-1419, 76-1430, and 76-1439 of the URLTA for retaliatory conduct, ouster, and failure to maintain fit and habitable premises but not under sections 76-1418 and 76-1429 for failure to deliver possession.In their complaint, Tenants alleged that numerous code violations materially affecting their health and safety were present at the time they commenced physical possession of the property at issue but were not discovered until later. The City of Omaha Planning Department's housing division eventually declared the property unsafe and unfit for human occupancy, Tenants vacated the premises and did not receive a return of their security deposit or rent and utilities paid for the months they were unable to occupy the premises. Tenants then brought this action. The district court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the alleged facts did not state a claim for relief under the URLTA. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the district court erred in dismissing several causes of action. View "Vasquez v. CHI Properties, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court imposing an aggregate sentence of forty-two to fifty-five years in prison in connection with Defendant's no contest pleas to possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, attempted first degree assault, and use of a firearm to commit a felony, holding that Defendant's sentences were not excessive, and Defendant's trial counsel was not ineffective.Specifically, the Court held (1) Defendant's claims that his counsel was ineffective for failing to utilize an interpreter when meeting with Defendant and failing to investigate, collect evidence, and interview witnesses were without merit; (2) the record was insufficient to address whether Defendant's counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress regarding Defendant's statements to law enforcement officers; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion when sentencing Defendant. View "State v. Chairez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the district court granting Father's motion seeking to establish parenting time and telephone communication with one of the parties' children, holding that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction during the appeal of the dissolution decree.Father and Mother were divorced by decree, and the parenting plan established a parenting time schedule for only one of the parties' three children. While an appeal from the dissolution decree was pending, Father filed his motion to establish parenting time and telephone communication with one of the other children. The district court granted the motion. The Supreme Court vacated the order of the district court and dismissed the appeal, holding (1) Mother's challenges to the award regarding a specific summer parenting time between Father and the child at issue were moot; and (2) as to Mother's challenge to the order awarding Father unrestrained cell phone communication with the child, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction during the pendency of the initial appeal. View "Becher v. Becher" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of the crime of assisting suicide, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction and that the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings.Defendant was convicted of assisting the suicide of his girlfriend. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in admitting the testimony of a forensic pathologist who performed the decedent's autopsy and in admitting text messages between Defendant and his romantic acquaintance and that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the forensic pathologist's testimony regarding the findings of the post mortem examination of the decedent; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the text messages; and (3) the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to sustain a conviction for assisting suicide. View "State v. Stubbendieck" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentence imposed as a result of his revocation from post-release supervision, holding that the term of imprisonment imposed by the court was within the statutory range and was not an abuse of discretion.Defendant absconded from post-release supervision and failed to appear at the hearing on the State's motion for revocation. Defendant was arrested and spent ninety-eight days in jail prior to revocation. The lower court found Defendant guilty of the allegations set forth within the motion to revoke post-release supervision and ordered Defendant to serve a term of imprisonment of 365 days in the county jail with zero days' credit for time served. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in extending his remaining term of post-release supervision upon revocation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not extend Defendant's term of post-release supervision, and therefore, Defendant's term of imprisonment was valid; (2) the term of imprisonment was within the statutory range; and (3) the court did not err in denying Defendant's request for jail time credit. View "State v. Phillips" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of enticement by electronic communication, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-833, and allowed the parties' stipulation to remand because the district court failed to instruct the jury in a manner that required it to consider whether Defendant knew that the recipient was under sixteen years of age.Although the parties stipulated to remand in this case, the Supreme Court addressed the stipulation in an opinion because it had not previously considered the precise issue. The Supreme Court allowed the stipulation, reversed the district court's judgment, and remanded the cause for a new trial, holding (1) where the prosecution under section 28-833 involves a minor child rather than a decoy, a defendant's knowledge that the recipient is under age sixteen is a material element of the crime of enticement by electronic communication device; and (2) the court erred in instructing the jury on the material elements of enticement by electronic communication device, and the error was prejudicial. View "State v. Paez" on Justia Law

In these appeals arising from juvenile proceedings involving Michael N. and his parents (Parents), the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that this Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the issues raised by the County Attorney's Office and that the issues raised by Parents in their appeals had either been waived or had no merit.After an appeal to the court of appeals and the State's dismissals and refilings of petitions, Parents separately moved to dismiss based on lack of service. Parents also moved, unsuccessfully, for recusal of the trial judge. The juvenile court ordered that the County Attorney's office be removed as counsel for the State and ordered the appointment of a special commissioner. Thereafter, the juvenile court denied the motions to dismiss and entered a detention order requiring that Michael remain in the temporary custody of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services. Multiple appeals were then filed. The Supreme Court held (1) this Court lacked jurisdiction over the County Attorney's Office's appeal from the order removing it from the case and appointing a special prosecutor; (2) Parents' appeals of the order denying their motions to dismiss and the detention order had been waived; and (3) there was no merit to Parents' arguments challenging the order overruling their motions to recuse. View "In re Interest of Michael N." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court in favor of Terrance Poppe in this legal malpractice action, holding that there was no merit to this appeal.Poppe represented Brenda Rice from Dale Rice. Thereafter, Rice filed this malpractice action against Poppe, alleging that Poppe did not advise her that a property settlement agreement waived her interest in Dale’s life insurance policies. The district court granted summary judgment for Poppe. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded. After a bench trial, the district court found in favor of Poppe. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that Poppe did not breach any duty owed to Rice and, even assuming a breach of duty, that Rice could not show that Poppe’s actions were the proximate cause of her injury. View "Rice v. Poppe" on Justia Law