John T. Grant

The case involved an appeal by the State from a district court ruling that suppressed statements made by defendant Ted Saltzman to a Nebraska State Patrol investigator about allegations of first-degree sexual assault on a child. The facts showed that Saltzman voluntarily went to the police station after a call from the local police chief, was told he was not under arrest and was free to leave at any time, and gave incriminating statements during an interview without being arrested afterward. Applying the rule that a trial court's suppression findings stand unless clearly wrong under the totality of the circumstances, the appellate court concluded Saltzman was not in custody during the interview. The court therefore held the district court's suppression order was clearly erroneous and reversed it.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. McCarthy, the State appealed a district court order suppressing a statement made by defendant Joe McCarthy to police during a homicide investigation involving suspect Jeff Benzel. Officers had surrounded the McCarthy residence with armed personnel, directed occupants including McCarthy to exit and enter a police van, then escorted McCarthy into a command post building for questioning about Benzel's location without providing Miranda warnings. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the suppression, finding that McCarthy was in custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom when questioned, triggering the need for Miranda warnings, and that the public safety exception from New York v. Quarles did not apply because there was no immediate danger. The court upheld the trial court's factual findings under the totality of the circumstances test.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a lawsuit by State Security Savings Co. to collect on a 1969 installment promissory note for $90,691.86 secured by livestock, after defendants fell behind on payments and sold some collateral without applying proceeds to the debt. In 1972, the plaintiff seized and sold the remaining cattle, and the trial court determined that this action accelerated the full debt under terms of a related security agreement allowing acceleration if the lender deemed itself insecure. The suit was not filed until January 1978, more than five years later. The court affirmed dismissal, holding the action barred by Nebraska's five-year statute of limitations because the cause of action accrued by March 1972 when the collateral was sold; it also upheld taking judicial notice of the security agreement from a related prior case between the same parties. The note and security agreement were construed together as contemporaneous documents.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involved a passenger's claim for personal injuries and property damage from a collision on a Nebraska highway between her car and a farm tractor towing a ditcher, where the tractor driver made a left turn into a private lane without signaling or checking for approaching traffic. The jury found for the defendants, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the tractor driver's failure to look rearward or signal constituted negligence as a matter of law that proximately contributed to the accident. The court reasoned that the undisputed facts matched prior precedent on improper left turns by slow-moving vehicles, that any speeding by the plaintiff's husband could not be imputed to the passenger, and that no contributory negligence instruction was warranted. It directed a verdict on liability for both defendants (the driver and his employer) and remanded solely for determination of damages.

torts & liability

This case involved a Nebraska partnership selling corn to a cooperative elevator under two written contracts from May 1973 and one oral contract from October 1973, each requiring delivery of specified bushels of No. 2 corn by the end of December. The seller delivered only a portion of the corn and the buyer sued for breach, seeking damages after covering the undelivered amounts through subsequent purchases. The trial court found for the buyer and awarded $106,423.09 in damages, which the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that the buyer had validly covered under UCC §§ 2-711 and 2-712 by making good-faith substitute purchases without unreasonable delay, even though the method used was not the cheapest possible in hindsight.

business & regulatory