Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the district court dismissing Plaintiff’s declaratory judgment action alleging that she had not been notified that her employment contract would not be renewed within the timeframe required by a collective bargaining agreement, holding that Plaintiff’s action was barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.Plaintiff brought this action against the Board of the Nebraska State Colleges alleging that the Board had breached the collective bargaining agreement by failing to timely notify her in writing of its intent not to renew her employment contract. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Board. The Supreme Court vacated the district court’s judgment and dismissed this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that that Plaintiff’s declaratory judgment action against the Board was an action against the State, and Plaintiff failed to identify any statute that served to waive the State’s sovereign immunity. View "Burke v. Board of Trustees of Nebraska State Colleges" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court dismissing the State’s complaint filed against Walter E.’s father, Mark E., to establish an order of support, holding that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the State’s complaint.The juvenile court adjudicated Walter to be a child within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-247(3)(a) and ordered him to remain in the custody of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) for placement at the Boys Town main campus. The court rather ordered that DHHS be responsible for all costs required by the placement. The State later filed a complaint on behalf of Walter and against Mark. The State alleged that Walter was in need of financial support from Mark and that Mark had a duty of support for Walter. The district court dismissed the State’s complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because there was an existing support order issued by the juvenile court, the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint filed by the State under section 43-512.03(1)(a). View "State ex rel. Walter E. v. Mark E." on Justia Law

In these paternity proceedings, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court that awarded sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ child to Father, holding that there was no reversible error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Mother argued primarily that the district court’s judgment was in error because she proved at trial that Father had committed child abuse under Nebraska law. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) not imposing limitations on Father’s custody and visitation writs and not making special written findings that such limitations would sufficiently protect the child from harm pursuant to section 43-2932 because the evidence did not demonstrate that Father committed child abuse; (2) awarding sole legal and physical custody of the child to Father subject to Mother’s parenting time; and (3) ordering Mother to pay Father child support. View "Randy S. v. Nicolette G." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the owners of the Quart House Pub and its premises (collectively, Quart House) in this negligence action brought by Lee and Amy Larsen and Plattsmouth Chiropractic Center, Inc. (collectively, Plattsmouth Chiropractic), holding that summary judgment was proper.A fire that broke out in the basement of Quart House Pub the fire spread and damaged property belonging to Plattsmouth Chiropractic. Plattsmouth Chiropractic sued Quart House alleging that equipment located in the basement of the pub had been negligently maintained. The district court granted summary judgment for Quart House. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking the testimony of Plattsmouth Chiropractic’s expert as to the cause of the fire; and (2) without that testimony, Plattsmouth Chiropractic could not present evidence that would allow a finder of fact to find that negligent maintenance caused the fire. View "Larsen v. 401 Main Street, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order dismissing Appellant’s claim against Metropolitan Utilities District (MUD) with prejudice, holding that the district court correctly determined that Appellant’s claim was time barred under the relevant provision of the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (PSTCA), Neb. Rev. Stat. 13-919(1).Appellant filed a complaint alleging that MUD was negligent with respect to its duty to inspect, discover, and cure dangerous conditions of loose manhole covers. The district court granted MUD’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, concluding that Appellant failed to satisfy a condition precedent to filing suit when she did not voluntarily withdraw her claim with MUD and that Appellant’s complaint was time barred under section 13-919(1). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s petition was filed outside of the timing requirements of section 13-919(1). View "Patterson v. Metropolitan Utilities District" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence for robbery, holding that none of Defendant’s argument on appeal warranted reversal of his conviction.Specifically, the Court held (1) the district court did not err when it admitted into evidence a note that was found in what Defendant claimed was an improper search of his person; (2) the district court did not err when it determined that Defendant was competent to stand trial and for sentencing; (3) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s conviction; (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant; and (5) as to Defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the claims were either without merit, not sufficiently stated, or could not be reviewed on direct appeal. View "State v. Garcia" on Justia Law

In this action for declaratory judgment the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the decision of the district court finding that the City of Imperial, Nebraska was financially responsible for $436 in medical costs incurred by a person who was arrested, holding that declaratory judgment was not available.An arrestee filed this declaratory judgment seeking a determination that the City was solely responsible for the medical expenses the arrestee incurred when he was required to submit to a physical examination before being placed in jail. The district court agreed that the City was responsible for the arrestee’s medical costs. The court of appeals reversed, determining that Chase County, Nebraska was the responsible party. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that declaratory judgment was not available due to the lack of a justiciable controversy between the parties. The Court remanded the cause with directions to vacate the district court’s judgment. View "Chase County v. City of Imperial" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court granting Defendant’s motion to vacate his sentence and withdraw the plea pursuant to the common-law procedure recognized in State v. Gonzalez, 830 N.W.2d 504 (2013), holding that the common-law procedure was not available to Defendant as a matter of law.Defendant pleaded no contest to second degree assault. After completing his sentence, Defendant moved to vacate his sentence and withdraw his plea pursuant to the Supreme Court’s holding in Gonzalez. In his motion, Defendant alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to advise him of the deportation consequences of his plea-based conviction. The district court granted the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court erred in granting Defendant’s common-law motion because he had a remedy under the Nebraska Postconviction Act. View "State v. Jerke" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying, without a hearing, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, holding that the district court’s action was authorized by Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-2301.02.On appeal, Plaintiff did not challenge section 25.2301.02 but argued that the lack of a hearing in his case was unconstitutional. Plaintiff, however, did not file notice under Neb. Cr. R. App. P. 2-109(E) that is required for a party to present a case involving the constitutionality of a statute. The Supreme Court rejected Plaintiff’s argument on appeal, holding that notice under section 2-109(E) is required whenever the litigant implicitly challenges the constitutionality of a statute that, while not addressed in the appellate brief, explicitly authorizes the act the litigant claims is unconstitutional. View "Smith v. Wedekind" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction this appeal brought by the State appealing the order of the separate juvenile court of Douglas County, which vacated its previous order of adjudication and set the matter for further proceedings, holding that the order was not a final order appealable by the State.The juvenile court vacated a previous adjudication order based on acceptance of a “plea of no contest” to allegations made by the State against Maximus B. in an amended petition filed pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-247. The juvenile court set a date for a formal pretrial hearing, determining that “a plea of no contest” is not a permitted answer under Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-279 where the petition alleges that the child is a juvenile violator under section 43-247. The State appealed, claiming that the juvenile court erred in determining that a plea of no contest is not permitted under section 43-279. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the juvenile court’s order was not a final order appealable by the State. View "In re Interest of Maximus B." on Justia Law