Dale E. Fahrnbruch

This case involved the State appealing a district court order suppressing testimonial and physical evidence, including a sawed-off shotgun, obtained after a police officer entered Shurter's mobile home without a warrant while investigating vandalism to his truck. The Supreme Court reversed the suppression order and remanded for further proceedings, concluding that Shurter voluntarily consented to the officer's entry. The court reasoned that consent may be given through nonverbal conduct, such as stepping back and opening the door wider, and that once lawfully inside, the officer could seize the shotgun because its incriminating nature was immediately apparent in plain view under the totality of the circumstances.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Vermuele, the York County Attorney appealed a district court order suppressing evidence of cocaine residue found in the defendant's wallet during a vehicle search. The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the suppression, holding that the search was valid under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. The court found that police had probable cause based on a detailed anonymous tip from a Crimestoppers caller that was substantially corroborated by officers' prior investigation and real-time verification of the defendant's location, vehicle, and planned activities. Officers lawfully stopped the vehicle and conducted a warrantless search supported by objective facts that would have justified a warrant. The decision applied Fourth Amendment standards and Nebraska constitutional protections against unreasonable searches.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Haywood, the State of Nebraska appealed a district court order suppressing statements made by defendant Bobby Haywood during a custodial interrogation after his arrest on charges of unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the suppression order, holding that the statements were voluntary under the totality of the circumstances and that police were not required to reissue Miranda warnings before a second officer continued the interrogation. The court reasoned that the State met its burden to show voluntariness by a preponderance of the evidence, as officers used standard questioning tactics without improper inducements or coercion, and that the initial Miranda waiver remained effective during the brief continuation of questioning by the second officer, consistent with precedents like Stumes v. Solem.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Mary E. Truman suing defendant Claude Joe Martin in equity to establish the existence of a joint venture and partnership for operating a restaurant called Pete’s Truck Stop and to obtain an accounting of profits. The trial court found that such a partnership existed from January 1, 1975, to February 5, 1977, but not for the defendant’s other businesses like a bar or tree trimming, and awarded the plaintiff half the restaurant profits after a settlement agreement was deemed rescinded by the parties’ conduct and resumption of their relationship. The Supreme Court reviewed the facts de novo, affirmed the findings based on witness credibility and evidence of the parties splitting management and labor equally while operating the restaurant, and upheld the judgment of $15,313.50 plus a lien on assets, following statutory rules for partnership dissolution that showed equal contributions. No partnership was found for the other ventures due to lack of evidence they were included in the agreement.

business & regulatory

The case was a contract dispute over payments owed after the sale of an accounting business in Hastings, Nebraska, from George Rullman to the LaFrance partnership (later acquired by McDermott and Miller), where Rullman sought 15 percent of gross billings not only from his former clients but also from new clients served by the buyers over 84 months. The trial court found the agreement ambiguous, admitted parol evidence, and ruled that Rullman was entitled only to payments based on billings from his original clients. The appellate court affirmed the judgment for the defendants, concluding that the written contract was clear and unambiguous on its face, with the parties' intent limited to servicing Rullman's transferred clientele, so parol evidence was inadmissible to expand its terms.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Bird v. Bird, the case concerned the reasonableness of a $375 monthly child support award for the parties' toddler in a divorce decree. The trial court granted the dissolution, awarded custody to the wife, divided the marital assets roughly equally, disallowed alimony, and set child support at $375 based on the wife's expense estimates. The husband appealed, arguing the support amount was excessive given his net monthly income of $1,053 and his own expenses. On de novo review, the court modified the award downward to $250 per month, holding that the trial court failed to adequately weigh the father's ability to pay under the statute and precedents, while affirming the property division and other provisions as equitable.

family law