William C. Hastings

Michael W. Ryan, convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the torture killing of James Thimm, appealed the district court's denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Nebraska law. Ryan raised multiple claims, primarily alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, along with issues such as judicial misconduct and cumulative error at trial and sentencing. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the denial, applying the standard that a defendant must show both deficient performance by counsel and resulting prejudice, and finding that many claims had already been resolved on direct appeal or lacked factual support. The court held that the district court's findings were not clearly erroneous and that Ryan failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the outcome would have differed but for any alleged deficiencies.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a medical malpractice claim by Betty Wagner against Dr. Douglas Pope, alleging that the doctor negligently failed to diagnose her appendicitis, leading to complications like a ruptured appendix and bowel obstruction. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, and the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed that decision. The court reasoned that the defendant's own affidavit as an expert, stating he had not breached the standard of care, established a prima facie case for summary judgment. The plaintiff failed to counter this with expert testimony showing a breach, as required in medical malpractice cases, and the deposition from the consulting surgeon actually confirmed that the standard of care was met; a layperson's affidavit was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

In this case, Ronald Williams filed a second motion for postconviction relief from his 1986 second-degree murder conviction, claiming the trial court omitted malice as a required element from the jury instructions in violation of due process and that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object. The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the district court's denial of relief, holding that malice is and has been a material element of second-degree murder, so the defective instructions entitled Williams to relief even on a successive motion. The majority reasoned that the constitutional error was not procedurally defaulted in a way that barred review and that prior counsel's failures did not prevent consideration of the claim. A dissent maintained that the issue could and should have been raised in the first postconviction proceeding, making further relief unavailable.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case concerned the constitutionality of 1991 Neb. Laws, L.B. 795, § 6, which required that two percent of gross proceeds from lotteries conducted in counties with licensed racetracks be deposited into a Thoroughbred Racing Assistance Fund to supplement racing purses. Municipal corporations and individual taxpayers challenged the provision as an unconstitutional additional tax and on equal protection grounds, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the state tax commissioner. The district court ruled the statute violated the Nebraska Constitution's special legislation prohibition and equal protection clauses, and enjoined its enforcement. On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court held that the municipal corporations lacked standing but the taxpayers had standing to challenge the law as an illegal expenditure of public funds; the court affirmed that the statute was unconstitutional under Neb. Const. art. III, § 24 and permanently enjoined its enforcement, without reaching the equal protection claims.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

Ruth Eggers sued the personal representative of Isabelle Barkdoll's estate and residuary charitable beneficiaries, seeking an injunction and specific performance of an alleged 1952 oral contract in which the Barkdolls promised to convey 160 acres of land to Eggers upon their deaths in exchange for personal services and maintenance of the property. After a bench trial, the district court denied relief, and the Court of Appeals affirmed on the ground that the action constituted a time-barred "claim" under the probate code, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2485. The Nebraska Supreme Court held that the action was not a probate claim because it disputed title to the land and thus was not subject to the nonclaim statute, but it affirmed the denial of relief because Eggers failed to prove the contract by clear and convincing evidence. The court reasoned that while testimony supported the existence of an oral agreement, Eggers' maintenance activities, payments, and use of the land were also consistent with a rental arrangement rather than referable solely to the alleged contract.

propertyprocedure

Pamela Cloonan sued the Food-4-Less grocery store for injuries from slipping and falling on its sidewalk after shopping, claiming ice created a dangerous condition the store failed to remedy despite actual or constructive notice. At trial, Cloonan's evidence showed the sidewalk was wet but not icy or slippery where she fell, with no direct testimony identifying ice at the fall site and testimony from others confirming salted or cleared areas nearby. The district court directed a verdict for the store at the close of her case, and the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that without evidence the store knew or should have known of a hazardous condition, Cloonan failed to meet her burden of proof on notice. The court applied the standard that a directed verdict is proper when an issue must be decided as a matter of law based on the plaintiff's evidence taken as true.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a swine-raising operation whose herd became infected with pseudorabies after a tornado carried the virus from nearby quarantined herds on March 13, 1990. The farm's insurance policy covered physical loss to livestock caused directly by windstorm, an insured peril, with no exclusion for infectious diseases, but the insurer denied the claim. The district court granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiff on liability, finding the windstorm to be the direct, proximate, and efficient cause of the losses, and awarded damages including veterinarian fees and buyer refunds after a trial on damages. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the policy's "caused directly" language encompassed losses proximately resulting from the windstorm and that mitigation expenses were recoverable.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved Kenneth Sorenson, who pled guilty to six felonies including burglary, sexual assaults, and two counts of using a weapon to commit a felony, and was sentenced as a habitual criminal with mandatory minimum terms. The Nebraska Supreme Court addressed whether the trial court's ambiguous oral pronouncement of sentences regarding the consecutiveness of the two weapon-use terms could be clarified or corrected by the written journal entry. The court determined that the oral sentences were ambiguous and invalid to the extent they failed to impose consecutive terms for each weapon-use conviction as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1205. It held that the written judgment correctly set forth the mandatory consecutive sentences and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision as modified.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved members of a public employees' union suing the City of Omaha for an accounting and back wages, claiming underpayment after the Commission of Industrial Relations ordered a shift from a three-step to a six-step pay plan requiring five years to reach the top wage step. The Commission order set minimum and maximum wages for job classifications but did not specify how to transition existing employees, and the city placed them on the new plan according to their years of service as of December 26, 1988, resulting in wage reductions for some. The employees argued the city should have credited their prior relative positions on the old plan and that they had vested rights to top-step pay. The court treated the matter as an action at law arising from the contract and held that the city's implementation complied with the order, the Commission had statutory authority to set wage progression schedules, and employees had no vested right to placement based on the prior plan. The district court's dismissal was affirmed.

labor & employment

The case concerned Nebraska's marijuana and controlled substances tax, under which the Department of Revenue issued jeopardy assessments against David and Lisa Boll totaling over $37,000 each, including tax, penalties, and interest. The Bolls petitioned for redetermination but were denied a hearing because they neither paid the tax nor posted the required $18,800 security, as mandated by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-4312(4); they submitted poverty affidavits showing they could not afford to do so. The district court held that the statute violated due process as applied to indigent taxpayers, and the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that conditioning access to a redetermination hearing on payment or security effectively barred indigents from challenging the assessment and exhausting administrative remedies. It further held that the statute constituted an invalid delegation of legislative authority because it provided no standards for determining what constitutes suitable security.

taxescivil rightsprocedure

The case concerned Slack Nursing Home's challenge to the Nebraska Department of Social Services' adjustments to its Medicaid cost report, specifically reducing reimbursement for the administrator's salary based on the Department's interpretation of regulation § 011.06K, which uses Kansas City salary surveys to set maximum allowable compensation. The district court reviewed the agency decision de novo on the record and rejected the Department's reading of the regulation, treating the surveys only as guidelines. On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court held that the APA's de novo review standard does not violate separation of powers, but that courts must defer to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent; applying that standard, the court found the Department's use of the surveys mandatory and reversed the district court to reinstate the agency's order.

healthcarebusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Southern Nebraska Rural Public Power District seeking compensation from the City of Grand Island after the Nebraska Power Review Board transferred a portion of Southern's certified power service area in an annexed subdivision to the City. Southern had no power lines, facilities, or customers in the undeveloped area and argued that the Board should determine economic impact and award compensation under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 70-1010(2) for the loss of its right to serve the territory. The Board granted the transfer but denied compensation, and the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statute requires compensation determinations only in transfers involving customers and facilities, which did not occur here.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved residents of Sheridan County challenging the constitutionality of Nebraska's 1991 legislative redistricting law (L.B. 614 as amended), which split the county between two districts after the 1990 census. The plaintiffs argued this violated article III, § 5 of the Nebraska Constitution by failing to follow county lines where practicable. The district court upheld the statute, and the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the constitution grants the Legislature discretion to determine which counties to divide and that the plaintiffs failed to clearly establish unconstitutionality. The court clarified that its prior ruling in Day v. Nelson was narrow and did not prohibit dividing counties with ideal population sizes, and it found the Legislature's population deviation guidelines permissible.

elections

This case involved a challenge by registered electors and taxpayers to the constitutionality of Nebraska Legislative Bill 7, which adjusted legislative district boundaries in response to a prior court ruling invalidating parts of an earlier redistricting law for failing to follow county lines where practicable. The plaintiffs argued that the new law violated provisions on county boundaries, special laws, free elections, property rights in nomination certificates, free speech and association, equal protection, and contract impairment. The district court dismissed the suit after finding the statute constitutional, and the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed on de novo review. The court held that the appellants failed to meet their burden of proving unconstitutionality, as the redistricting satisfied applicable standards and no contractual rights were created or impaired by the certificate of nomination.

electionscivil rightsfree speech

The case involved Future Motels, Inc., appealing a Custer County Board of Equalization decision that valued its Super 8 Motel property at $596,850 for 1992 tax purposes, after the company protested for a lower amount and claimed unequal assessment compared to similar properties. The district court affirmed the Board's valuation, finding the company failed to prove the assessment was arbitrary or unfair. On further appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court dismissed the case because the required transcript of the Board's proceedings was never filed in the district court as mandated by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1510, which states that no proceedings may occur until the transcript is filed. The court reasoned that the statute places filing responsibility on the taxpayer and that the absence of the transcript deprived the lower court of authority to hear the matter.

taxespropertyprocedure

This case was a negligence lawsuit brought by passenger Marvin Winslow against driver Chad Hammer and his father following a head-on car collision on a two-lane highway. After the Winslows' minivan struck a deer and lost one headlight, Hammer attempted to pass another westbound vehicle and struck the Winslows in the eastbound lane; a jury found Marvin not entitled to damages. On appeal, the court held that the trial court properly denied a directed verdict on Hammer's negligence but erred by instructing the jury on the defenses of joint enterprise, assumption of risk, and contributory negligence. The court reasoned that no joint enterprise existed between the Winslow spouses, that Marvin could not have assumed a risk created by Hammer's own conduct, and that any negligence by the driver Mary Winslow could not be imputed to passenger Marvin. The verdict was therefore reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved an action by Jim's, Inc., a retail store, against its former employee Willman for conversion of inventory over several years, with damages claimed based on changes in gross profit margins. The district court initially denied summary judgment but later granted it on a second motion after the presiding judge suggested the motion, noted restitution on traceable items, and stated he had prejudged the outcome. On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case, holding that the trial judge must recuse himself because he had recused earlier without reinstatement and had created an appearance of bias by directing and prejudging the summary judgment proceedings. The core reasoning centered on the requirements for judicial impartiality and the need to avoid any suggestion that a judge assisted one party.

proceduretorts & liability

The case Thiltges v. Thiltges concerns the dissolution of a marriage between Deborah and Frederick Thiltges, focusing on the equitable division of their marital estate, which included farm assets and other property, and the potential award of alimony. The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed decisions from lower courts regarding the distribution of assets and support payments. The court decided to modify the decree to include interest on the deferred property award payable to the appellant over 12 years, finding it would not unduly burden the appellee, but declined to award alimony after considering both parties' earning capacities. The core reasoning emphasized equitable property division based on the duration of the marriage, contributions of each party, and the ability of the supported spouse to secure employment, while noting that alimony is not intended merely to equalize incomes.

family lawproperty

This case involved an employee, Jeffery Svitak, who was fired by Chief Industries after testing positive for marijuana under the company's drug-free workplace policy, and subsequently applied for unemployment benefits. The Nebraska Department of Labor initially granted benefits, but the Appeal Tribunal disqualified him for seven weeks, finding the positive test constituted misconduct; the district court reversed this, but the Supreme Court reversed the district court and reinstated the disqualification. The court reasoned that a positive drug test result alone can establish misconduct under the Employment Security Law if it deliberately violates an employer's reasonable rule that bears a relationship to the employer's interests, such as workplace safety, product quality, and community reputation, even without evidence of on-the-job impairment.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

Blue Tee Corporation sought to foreclose on a construction lien bond after supplying raw steel to Northwestern Steel & Supply Co., which fabricated the steel for use in a department store project where CDI Contractors was the general contractor. Northwestern failed to pay Blue Tee and went bankrupt, prompting Blue Tee to claim protection under the Nebraska Construction Lien Act as a supplier to a subcontractor. The district court dismissed the petition, ruling that Northwestern was a materialman rather than a subcontractor. On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed, finding that Northwestern qualified as a subcontractor because it performed substantial labor by cutting, drilling, and fabricating the steel to exact project specifications off-site. The court held Blue Tee was therefore entitled to a lien but denied prejudgment interest because the disputed subcontractor status rendered the claim unliquidated.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure