Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and of being a habitual criminal and Defendant’s sentence of ten to eighteen years in prison, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Court held (1) the evidence was sufficient to support a guilty verdict; (2) the district court did not err in allowing evidence of text messages from cell phones over hearsay, foundation, completeness, and best evidence objections; and (3) the district court did not impose an excessive sentence. View "State v. Savage" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences for one count of first degree sexual assault of a child and two counts of incest related to an incident with his girlfriend’s children, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting “Y-STR” DNA evidence over Defendant’s objections.Prior to trial, Defendant filed a motion in liming seeking to exclude all evidence of Y-STR DNA testing under the Daubert/Schafersman analytical framework. The district court denied the motion, determining the reasoning and methodology behind the Y-STR DNA testing to be valid and reliable. Defendant was subsequently found guilty. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in admitting the Y-STR DNA evidence; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant within statutory limits. View "State v. Tucker" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the district court affirming the decision of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) terminating the Medicaid benefits of Eric S., holding that the corpus of a trust was not available to Eric for purposes of determining his Medicaid eligibility.Specifically, the Court held (1) the trust at issue was properly characterized as a testamentary trust; (2) applying Pohlmann v. Nebraska Department of Health & Human Services, 710 N.W.2d 639 (Neb. 2006), the trust was a discretionary trust, and Eric did not have the ability to compel distribution of the entire corpus; and (3) therefore, it was error to find the entire trust corpus was an available resource in evaluating Eric’s eligibility for Medicaid. View "Donna G. v. Nebraska Department of Health & Human Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissal this appeal from an order of the district court denying Appellant’s request for a stay of an order of sale in a judicial foreclosure action, holding that the order denying the request for a stay was not appealable.The district court determined that Appellant and his former spouse owed Mutual of Omaha Bank $533,459, ordered an execution sale, and foreclosed Appellant and his former spouse from asserting any interest in the property. Mutual subsequently applied to and received from the district court a supplemental decree ordering that sums paid by Mutual that were not included in the initial decree be added to the amount due Mutual. After Appellant unsuccessfully requested a stay of the order of sale Appellant appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, holding (1) because a supplemental decree like the one at issue in this case does not give rise to a right to seek a statutory stay the district court’s order denying Appellant’s request for a stay did not affect an essential legal right; and (2) therefore, the order was not final, and this Court lacked jurisdiction to decide the appeal. View "Mutual of Omaha Bank v. Watson" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was whether the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider Azar Webb’s 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim in the same lawsuit in which the court considered an appeal from a contested case under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and whether, as a result, the court lacked the authority to award Webb attorney fees.After the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) ended Webb’s Medicaid benefits and denied his petition for reinstatement, Webb filed a claim in the district court under the APA for unlawful termination of Medicaid eligibility, adding a claim of violation of his federal rights under section 1983. The district court reversed DHHS’ decision and ordered reinstatement of Webb’s coverage and reimbursement of medical expenses that should have been covered. The court further found in favor of Webb as to his 1983 claim and enjoined DHHS officials from denying Webb Medicaid eligibility. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that once the district court resolved Webb’s APA claim, the court had the authority to grant Webb relief under section 1983 and his request for attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988. View "Webb v. Nebraska Department of Health & Human Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences for first degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person but modified the sentencing order to reflect additional credit for time served, holding that no prejudicial error occurred with respect to Defendant’s convictions but that the district court erred when it did not give Defendant credit for ninety-one days of time served in Wyoming.Specifically, the Court held (1) Defendant’s assignments of error related to instructions that the court gave or refused to give were unavailing; (2) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s conviction for first degree murder; and (3) while the court did not impose excessive sentences, it did fail to give Defendant adequate credit for time served. View "State v. Mueller" on Justia Law