Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court held that the county court erred when it concluded that the appointed guardian (Guardian) of her juvenile nephew (Juvenile) had not satisfied 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)(J) and therefore denied Guardian’s motion to make special factual findings that are necessary to apply for SIJ status under the statute.In denying Guardian’s request to make special findings to be used in immigration proceedings, the county court stated that Juvenile was “not dependent on this court” and that Guardian had not satisfied the dependency or custody component of section 1101(a)(27)(J). During the pendency of this appeal, the Nebraska Legislature amended Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-1238(b) to clarify that courts with jurisdiction over initial child custody determinations under section 43-1238(a) also have jurisdiction and authority to make special findings of fact similar to the findings of fact contemplated by section 1101(a)(27)(J). The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding that because the county court made a custody determination under section 43-1238(a), it erred when it concluded that it had not made a custody determination for purposes of section 1101(a)(27)(J)(i). View "In re Guardianship of Carlos D." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court overruling Defendant’s postconviction motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel without an evidentiary hearing and without appointing counsel, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Defendant later filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief setting forth three claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The district court rejected each of Defendant’s claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err when it overruled Defendant’s postconviction motion without an evidentiary hearing because Defendant failed to show prejudice from trial counsel’s alleged errors; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion to appoint counsel because the postconviction proceeding contained no justiciable issue of law or fact. View "State v. Taylor" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the sentences imposed in connection with Defendant’s conviction for second degree murder and first degree assault, holding that there was no merit to the arguments Defendant raised on appeal regarding his sentences.Defendant was seventeen years old at the time of the offenses. He was sentenced to sixty years’ to life imprisonment for second degree murder and to forty to fifty years’ imprisonment for first degree assault, with the sentences to run consecutively. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Defendant will be eligible for parole at age sixty-seven, Defendant did not receive a de facto life sentence; and (2) the district court did not impose excessive sentences. View "State v. Steele" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s plea-based conviction and sentence for attempted violation of Nebraska’s Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), holding that the district court did not commit plain error by accepting the factual basis for the plea and by sentencing Defendant.On appeal, Defendant argued that there was no factual basis for the district court to accept his plea because he was not required to register in Nebraska and therefore could not have violated SORA by failing to register in Nebraska. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-4003(1)(a)(iv) requires registration in Nebraska where an individual is required to register in another municipality or jurisdiction of the United States; and (2) there was a sufficient factual basis for Defendant’s plea to attempted violation of SORA. View "State v. Clemens" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court determining that Appellant’s injuries did not “arise out of” his employment, holding that Appellant’s assignment of error on appeal was without merit because he waived his argument by failing to present it to the compensation court.At trial, Appellant argued only that his injury arose out of employment because his fall, which resulted in injuries, resulted from a risk of employment. On appeal, however, Appellant argued that his injury arose out of employment under the “increased-danger” rule. The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not commit plain error by not applying the increased-danger rule, and Appellant waived his argument on appeal by failing to present it to the compensation court. View "Maroulakos v. Walmart Associates, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the language of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) directing that proceedings from review of actions taken by Nebraska administrative agencies or political subdivisions be instituted by filing a petition in the “district court of the county where the action is taken,” see Neb. Rev. Stat. 84-917(2)(a)(i), requires that a petition for review be filed in the district court of the county in which the first adjudicated hearing of a disputed claim took place.The petition for review in this case was not filed in the district court of the county where the first adjudicated hearing was held. The district court dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellants did not seek review in the manner provided by statute, and therefore, the district court did not acquire jurisdiction. View "Estate of Schluntz v. Lower Republican Natural Resources District" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the conclusion of the district court that Mother’s petition for habeas corpus challenging Adoptive Parents’ custody over the child in this case did not state a claim, holding that the court did not err in its ultimate determination that Mother failed to allege facts that would establish that Adoptive Parents were not entitled to sole custody of Mother’s biological child.In her petition, Mother alleged that her relinquishment of parental rights to the Department of Health and Human Services and consent to adoption had been obtained through coercion, false pretenses, or fraud. Specifically, Mother alleged that Adoptive Parents failed to comply with a communication and contact agreement allowing her to have contact with Child. The district court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court and the parties did not follow the correct procedure for a habeas proceeding; but (2) Mother’s allegations failed to allege facts that could warrant relief in a habeas proceeding. View "Maria T. v. Jeremy S." on Justia Law

The recent amendment for finalizing lump-sum settlements under Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-139(4) is procedural in nature and therefore applies to this workers’ compensation case, which was pending on appeal when section 48-139 was amended.Employer and Employee reached a lump-sum settlement and filed a verified release with the court using the process set out in section 48-139(3) and (4). Employer did not pay the amounts owed under the statutory deadline, and Employee moved for late payment penalties under section 48-139(4). The Workers’ Compensation Court overruled Employee’s motion and dismissed Employee’s petition with prejudice. While the matter was pending on appeal, the Legislature amended section 48-139 to specifically include a penalty provision for late payments of lump-sum settlements. The Supreme Court vacated the order of dismissal and remanded the cause with directions to award late payment penalties under section 48-139(4), holding that Employee was entitled to a late payment penalty. View "Dragon v. Cheesecake Factory" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in this quiet title action filed by Richard Jordan seeking to invalidate a mortgage lien on the ground that it was an improper encumbrance of the homestead under Neb. Rev. Stat. 40-104 because his signatures on the deed of trust were forged.In a previous order of dissolution and property division, the court allocated to Richard the marital home and its refinancing mortgage debt. In this quiet title action, the court granted summary judgment against Richard, finding that the deed of trust was a valid first and prior lien on the real estate and that Richard’s quiet title action was barred by issue preclusion and judicial estoppel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) issue preclusion and judicial estoppel may supply the statutory requirements set forth in Neb. Reb. Stat. 40-104 for encumbrances of a homestead; and (2) the district court did not err in finding as a matter of law that Richard’s attempt to invalidate the lien at issue was barred by issue preclusion. View "Jordan v. LSF8 Master Participation Trust" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court overruled the State’s exception in this exception proceeding challenging the juvenile court’s rulings on a motion to recuse and a motion to join the underlying case with that of another minor.In a delinquency proceeding, the county court, sitting as a juvenile court, found that the State failed to prove the allegations against J.K., the juvenile in this case, and dismissed the proceedings. The State appealed, arguing that the juvenile court erred when the presiding judge failed to recuse himself after evidence was presented showing bias and partiality an erred when it failed to join the cases of J.K.’s and J.G., another minor. The Supreme Court overruled the State’s exception, holding (1) the juvenile court’s denial of the motion for recusal was not error; and (2) the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying the State’s motion for joinder. View "In re Interest of J.K." on Justia Law