| Nathan v. McDermott |
| Citation: 306 Neb. 216 Opinion Date: June 26, 2020 Judge: William B. Cassel Areas of Law: Business Law, Contracts |
| In this contract and tort action brought by the buyers of a business pursuant to a written purchase agreement the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment for the sellers and dismissing the sellers' agents, holding that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion. Buyers bought a business from Sellers pursuant to a written purchase agreement. Buyers later bought this action against Sellers and their agents. Sellers counterclaimed for amounts owing under promissory notes. The Supreme Court dismissed the agents under Neb. Ct. R. Pldg. 6-1112(b)(6) and entered summary judgment for Sellers on all claims and counterclaims. The court then denied Sellers' motion for attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) undisputed facts supported the summary judgments for Sellers; (2) the complaint stated no claim against the agent; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying attorney fees to Sellers. |
| |
| Brumbaugh v. Bendorf |
| Citation: 306 Neb. 250 Opinion Date: June 26, 2020 Judge: William B. Cassel Areas of Law: Communications Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's request for attorney fees authorized but not mandated by statute, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding no fees or costs. Appellant sued Defendant under federal and state wiretapping statutes and under Neb. Rev. Stat. 20-203. The jury found that Appellant met his burden of proof as to both the federal and state wiretapping claims and awarded damages of $4,800. The trial court sustained Appellant's motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and to alter or amend based on the jury's award of damages, awarding statutory damages of $10,000. The district court denied attorney fees and costs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) trial courts are not required to provide an explanation of an award of attorney fees; (2) while Defendant obtained a jury verdict in his favor, it was less than half of the minimum damages statutorily mandated, and therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding no attorney fees; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion by not awarding litigation costs. |
| |
| State v. Williams |
| Citation: 306 Neb. 261 Opinion Date: June 26, 2020 Judge: Michael G. Heavican Areas of Law: Criminal Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of negligent child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury and sentence of a term of incarceration not less than two years nor more than three years, holding that the convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and that there was no abuse of discretion in the sentence imposed. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err in permitting the State to recall the victim's mother; (2) the district court did not err in overruling Defendant's motion to dismiss; (3) there was sufficient evidence to find Defendant guilty of negligent child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury; (4) there was sufficient evidence to find Defendant guilty of negligent child abuse; and (5) the district court did not impose an excessive sentence. |
| |
| Aboytes-Mosqueda v. LFA Inc. |
| Citation: 306 Neb. 277 Opinion Date: June 26, 2020 Judge: Freudenberg Areas of Law: Labor & Employment Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Workers' Compensation Court (WCC) dismissing Plaintiff's workers' compensation claim against Ismael Huerta and LFA Inc. because Plaintiff failed to prove he was an employee of Huerta, holding that the WCC did not clearly err in its determination that Plaintiff was not an employee of Huerta. Plaintiff was working on a roofing job with Huerta when he slipped and fell from the roof. Plaintiff brought a claim against Huerta and LFA, claiming that Huerta was his employer and that Huerta and LFA conducted a scheme to avoid liability under the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act. The WCC dismissed the action, finding that Plaintiff failed to carry his burden of demonstrating that he was Huerta's employee. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the WCC did not err in concluding that Plaintiff failed to prove his employee status. |
| |
