Latest 3 Cases: Great Northern Insurance Co. v. Transit Authority of Omaha (Civil Procedure), State v. Montoya (Civil Rights), State v. Schroeder ...

Equality Is the Lesson of Our Day

JOSEPH MARGULIES

Cornell law professor Joseph Margulies observes that the COVID-19 pandemic reveals our shared equality as individuals but also lays bare the inequality of American society. Margulies argues that equality is an outcome achieved by one in aid to another, and by government in aid to all in need.

Read More

Wisconsin’s Decision to Have an Election This Month Was Unjust, But Was it Also Unconstitutional? Why the Plaintiffs (Rightly) Lost in the Supreme Court

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, JASON MAZZONE

Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar and professor Jason Mazzone comment on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent per curiam decision staying an injunction by a federal district court in Wisconsin, effectively allowing the election in that state to go forward on with the normal timeline for casting ballots in place, despite concerns over the effects of COVID-19. Amar and Mazzone argue that, while the outcome might have been unjust, the plaintiffs in that case likely did not allege a constitutional violation and thus did not properly allege claims suitable to be remedied in federal court.

Read More

Great Northern Insurance Co. v. Transit Authority of Omaha

Citation: 305 Neb. 609

Opinion Date: April 17, 2020

Judge: Freudenberg

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals dismissing Metro Area Transit's (Metro) appeal of the district court's denial of his motion for summary judgment based on sovereign immunity, holding that the court of appeals had jurisdiction pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-1902. The underlying claim was a subrogation action in which Great Northern Insurance Company sought compensation from Metro under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. 13-901 et seq. Metro moved for summary judgment based on sovereign immunity. The district court denied the motion, and Metro appealed. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction because the denial of a motion for summary judgment is interlocutory and not a final order. At issue was the amendment of Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-1902, which added denials of summary judgment based on a claim of sovereign immunity to the definition of a final order. The statute was amended after the order denying summary judgment was entered but before the thirty-day period to file a timely appeal expired and before Metro filed its notice of appeal. The Supreme Court granted Metro's petition for further review and reversed, holding that the court of appeals had jurisdiction pursuant to the newly amended section 25-1902.

State v. Montoya

Citation: 305 Neb. 581

Opinion Date: April 17, 2020

Judge: Freudenberg

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court affirming Defendant's conviction and sentence for driving under the influence, holding that there was no error in the challenged rulings by the trial court. Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the district court did not err by (1) affirming the county court's order denying Defendant's motion to suppress fruits of the stop; (2) affirming the county court's order that denied Defendant's motion to suppress the fruits of his arrest; (3) affirming the county court's order that denied Defendant's motion to suppress the results of the test of his breath alcohol content; (4) finding sufficient evidence to support the conviction; and (5) finding that Defendant's sentence was not excessive.

State v. Schroeder

Citation: 305 Neb. 527

Opinion Date: April 17, 2020

Judge: Funke

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentence of death for first degree murder, holding that there was no error in the sentence imposed by the sentencing panel. Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the sentencing panel did not err in (1) allowing the State to introduce evidence on the existence of mitigating circumstances; (2) acknowledging and weighing mitigating evidence from the presentence investigation report; (3) not requesting that documentation from the Department of Correctional Services regarding Defendant's time in custody for mitigation purposes be included in the presentence investigation report; (4) sentencing Defendant to death, where the Legislature has enacted safeguards to ensure fairness and accuracy in the resulting sentence; and (5) finding Defendant should be sentenced to death after balancing the aggravating evidence and mitigating evidence.