Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant Angelo Tolbert was convicted of first degree murder, first degree assault, and two counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on the murder count and 40 to 50 years’ imprisonment on each of the other three counts, to be served consecutively. Tolbert appealed, arguing: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions; (2) the sentences imposed were excessive; and (3) the district court erred in denying his motion for new trial. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Nebraska v. Tolbert" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of first degree murder, kidnapping, and first degree sexual assault on a child. Appellant was sentenced to death on the murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences on appeal. Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief, which the district court denied. Appellant then filed a second postconviction petition and sought relief under the common-law writ of error coram nobis. The district court denied postconviction relief, concluding that Appellant failed to raise any ground for relief not previously available to him. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant’s postconviction claims were procedurally barred because they were or could have been litigated on direct appeal or in his previous postconviction petition; and (2) Appellant failed to raise any basis warranting coram nobis relief. View "State v. Hessler" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the Legislature’s amendments to anti-attachment statutes to allow a civil judgment to attach to the distributed retirement assets of State Patrol officers and other public employees who have committed any of six specified crimes. Appellant was a retired State Patrol Officer who was convicted of one of the specified crimes, first degree sexual assault of a child. J.M., the victim’s guardian and conservator, sued Appellant on the victim’s behalf and obtained a civil judgment against Appellant. J.M. subsequently attempted to obtain an order in aid of execution. Appellant challenged the constitutionality of the amendment. The district court concluded that the amendment was unconstitutional as special legislation and dismissed J.M.’s motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly determined that the amendment constitutes special legislation. View "J.M. v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

Beginning in 1974, Douglas County’s retired employees paid the same amount as active employees for health insurance coverage. In 2009, the County Board of Commissioners adopted a resolution that charged retirees premiums that were higher than the rate paid by active employees. Shortly before the change was to take effect, retired employees of the County (Plaintiffs) sued the County. The district court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, concluding that equitable estoppel prohibited the County from increasing the premiums to be paid by the retirees above those paid by active employees. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the retirees had no contractual right to pay the same premiums as active employees, the district court erred in using equitable estoppel to create such a contractual obligation. Remanded with direction to enter judgment for the County on Plaintiffs’ claims. View "Christiansen v. County of Douglas" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sued Madison County under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act, alleging that the County was negligent for failing to maintain a vacated county road, causing injuries to some of Plaintiffs. The district court entered judgment against the County, concluding that the County breached its duty to maintain the vacated road. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial. On remand, the district court entered judgment in favor of the County, determining that the County retained its sovereign immunity because Plaintiffs’ claims fell within exemptions to the Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the County retained sovereign immunity with respect to its discretionary functions and therefore could not be held legally liable for its inaction. View "Blaser v. County of Madison" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a weapon by a prohibited person. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in overruling his motion to suppress his confession and admitting it into evidence at trial because his confession was the product of threats, coercion, and inducements of leniency made by police officers. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences, holding (1) police officers misrepresented to Defendant that felony murder would receive a lesser sentence than premeditated murder, but the misinformation did not overcome Defendant’s will and cause him to confess; and (2) therefore, the confession was voluntary and properly admitted at trial. View "State v. Turner" on Justia Law

Appellant was charged with driving under the influence and with failing to yield the right-of-way. Appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result an alleged seizure that he asserted was in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The county court overruled the motion, concluding that there was no seizure in this case. After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted as charged. On appeal, the district court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it affirmed the county court’s order overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress, as, under the facts of this case, Appellant was not seized for Fourth Amendment purposes. View "State v. Avey" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of fourth-offense driving under the influence (DUI) and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two to three years. In addition, Defendant’s driver’s license was revoked for fifteen years. Defendant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress for lack of probable cause to arrest because his vehicle was on public property not open to public access at all relevant times. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence, holding (1) the district court did not err in overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress because the arresting officer was justified in approaching the vehicle after observing the driver exit the vehicle and urinate on a tree, which was an unlawful act; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; (3) the district court did not err in ruling that two prior convictions could be used for sentence enhancement; (4) the district court did not err in modifying its prior finding to reflect that Defendant had three prior DUI convictions instead of two; and (5) the district court did not impose an excessive sentence. View "State v. Matit" on Justia Law

Through its power of eminent domain, the State of Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR) took real property owned by Leo and Joanna Hike for a highway project. The parties were unable to agree on compensation, and the case proceeded to trial for a determination of damages. The principal issue disputed at trial was the fair market value of the Hikes’ property immediately prior to the taking, which depended on whether the property’s highest and best use at the time was residential or commercial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Hikes for $53,209, which suggested that the jury agreed with NDOR that the property must be valued as residential property. The Supreme Court affirmed the jury verdict, holding (1) the district court did not commit prejudicial error with respect to the evidentiary issues raised by the Hikes; (2) the district court did not err in instructing the jury; and (3) the prosecutor made an improper comment during closing argument, but the comment did not prevent a fair verdict. View "Hike v. State" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Defendants, the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC), the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, and several members of the UNMC’s staff, in their official and individual capacities, for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act, alleging that Defendants discriminated against him while he was a medical student at UNMC because of his chronic and recurrent depressive disorder disability. The district court dismissed the individual defendants in their individual capacities and granted summary judgment in favor of the remaining defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) granting summary judgment on Plaintiff’s ADA/Rehabilitation Act claims; (2) denying portions of Plaintiff’s motions to compel; and (3) failing to sua sponte schedule a hearing relating to Defendants’ alleged failure to comply with motions to compel that were granted. View "Doe v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Neb." on Justia Law