Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim under the State Tort Claims Act (STCA), holding that the district court did not err in dismissing Plaintiff’s action against the State.Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (DCS), alleged in his complaint that his personal property was seized and improperly disposed of by DCS personnel. The district court concluded (1) Plaintiff’s claims against the individual defendants were barred by qualified immunity, and (2) as to the State, the claim was barred under Neb. Rev. Stat. 81-8,219(2) because the claim was an exception to the STCA’s waiver of sovereign immunity. Defendant appealed from the portion of the order dismissing his action against the State. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the DCS personnel that detained Defendant’s property were “law enforcement officer[s]” covered by the exception to the waiver of sovereign immunity under section 81-8,219(2), the State did not waive sovereign immunity from Defendant’s claims. View "Rouse v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the orders of the district court making paternity and custody determinations concerning one child but declining to do so with respect to the other child at issue in this case, holding that Mother failed to comply with Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-520.02, and therefore, the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter the relief sought.Specifically, the district court found that Mother did not properly serve Appellee and that it lacked jurisdiction to establish paternity and award custody with respect to one child. The court also failed to find that it was in the children’s best interests to remain in the United States rather than return to Guatemala. Mother challenged these findings on appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Mother did not comply with section 25-520.01, and therefore, her constructive service was improper and the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over Appellee. View "Francisco v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court affirming Defendant’s sentence, imposed by the county court, to seventy-five days in jail in connection with Defendant’s plea of guilty to operating a motor vehicle during a time of suspension and speeding, holding that Defendant did not show proof of reinstatement of his suspended operator’s license as required under Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-4,108(2).On appeal, Defendant argued that his sentence was not authorized by statute because he had presented sufficient evidence to warrant only a $100 fine. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in affirming the sentence of seventy-five days in jail instead of a fine of $100 or less under section 60-4,108(2); and (2) Defendant’s seventy-five-day jail sentence was not excessive. View "State v. Ralios" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court affirming the county court's judgment convicting Defendant of driving under the influence, second offense aggravated, and sentencing him to eighteen months’ probation, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s appeal and affirming his conviction and sentence.Specifically, the Court held (1) Defendant counsel did not provide constitutionally deficient assistance; (2) Defendant’s due process rights were not violated with respect to the State’s offered plea agreement; and (3) Defendant’s constitutional rights were not violated by various actions of the State and the trial court. View "State v. Sundquist" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of M&D Trucking, LLC (M&D) and dismissing Appellants’ claims in this personal injury action, holding that there were no genuine issues of material fact.A truck driver failed to stop at a stop sign and struck a vehicle carrying members of a family, three of whom died. The driver was driving a truck and trailer with Turbo Turtle Logistics LLC signage on the date of the accident. M&D was the company hired to transport the load Johnson carried during the accident. Appellants brought this action against M&D, alleging that M&D was liable for the driver’s negligence through the doctrine of respondent superior and that M&D was negligent in hiring, training, or supervising the driver. The district court granted summary judgment for M&D. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the driver’s relationship with M&D was that of an independent contractor; (2) M&D did not have liability under that independent contractor relationship for the driver’s negligence; and (3) M&D was not a motor carrier responsible for the driver’s hiring, training, or supervision. View "Sparks v. M&D Trucking, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of possession of methamphetamine and sentencing her to two years’ probation, holding that the trial court did not err in overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress.On appeal, Defendant argued that the odor of marijuana alone no longer provides probable cause to support a warrantless search a vehicle because due to the legalization of marijuana in Colorado. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) when an officer detects the odor of marijuana emanating from a readily mobile vehicle, the odor alone furnishes probable cause to suspect contraband will be found, and the vehicle may be lawfully searched under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement; and (2) in this case, the odor of marijuana coming from inside the car furnished probable cause to suspect contraband would be found in the car, and therefore, the warrantless search was lawful. View "State v. Seckinger" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Keller Williams Realty in this lawsuit against Donna Rook, successor personal representative of the estate of Donald Lienemann (the Estate), holding that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for Keller and in denying summary judgment in favor of the Estate.In granting summary judgment for Keller, the district court found that Keller had established that the Estate breached a contract involving the sale of real property. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court had jurisdiction to decide the validity of Keller’s claim; and (2) the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Keller. The Court remanded the cause to the district court with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of the Estate. View "Eagle Partners, LLC v. Rook" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court vacated all prior orders pertaining to custody or visitation of Child, holding that the district court properly determined that it did not have and never had subject matter jurisdiction to make custody determinations regarding Child.Father and Mother were married in the nation of Togo, Africa. After they divorced, Father filed a motion to modify the decree, alleging that Mother had taken Child to Togo and refused to return Child to Father. The district court awarded Father sole care, custody, and control of Child. Several years later, Mother filed a motion to vacate the custody decree as it pertained to child custody, arguing that the court never had subject matter jurisdiction to decide custody issues concerning Child. The district court agreed and granted the motion, concluding that Nebraska was not Child’s home state at the time custody proceedings were initiated for purposes of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-1226 to 43-1266, and therefore, the court never had subject matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court never acquired subject matter jurisdiction of the custody of Child and, thus, any actions regarding Child's custody were void. View "DeLima v. Tsevi" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court affirming the judgment of the county court overruling Defendant’s motion to withdraw a no contest plea he entered years earlier pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. 29-1819.02(1), holding that the statute does not authorize the withdrawal of pleas based on inadequate translation.Section 29-1819.02(1) provides that if a court fails to give the required advisement that conviction may have certain immigration consequences and the defendant faces the immigration consequences about which he was not advised, the defendant has a right to have the judgment vacated, to withdraw the plea, and to enter a plea of not guilty. Defendant argued that he was entitled to withdraw his plea because an interpreter translated a word improperly when she recited the court’s advisement to Defendant in Spanish. The county court overruled the motion, and the district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant was not entitled to withdraw his plea because he did not demonstrate that the trial court failed to give all or part of the required advisement. View "State v. Garcia" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part the trial court’s partial denial of Defendant’s motion for return of some seized property, holding that the court’s partial denial of the motion was apparently premised on an incorrect reading of case law.Law enforcement seized personal property pursuant to a search warrant from a residence occupied by several persons, including Defendant. Defendant pleaded no contest to attempted possession of a controlled substance. Defendant later moved for return of some seized property. The district court overruled in part Defendant’s motion for return of personal property. The Supreme Court affirmed the portion of the district court’s order requiring the State to return items to Defendant but reversed the portion of the order denying return of other items, holding that where no evidence was presented by the State to rebut Defendant’s presumption of ownership, the court erred in finding that Defendant did not have exclusive possession of all the property. View "State v. McGuire" on Justia Law