Latest 4 Cases: Schaeffer v. Frakes (Civil Rights), State v. Dixon (Criminal Law), State v. Wilson (Criminal Law)

Democracy Is on the Ballot: One Party Defends It, The Other Would Let It Die

AUSTIN SARAT

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost, Associate Dean of the Faculty, and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College—explains why the 2020 Democratic National Convention was unlike any other political gathering in American history for reasons beyond its virtual platform. Sarat argues that the future of American democracy lies in the balance, and when we vote in November, it will be up to us whether democracy lives or dies.

Read More

Schaeffer v. Frakes

Citation: 306 Neb. 904

Opinion Date: August 21, 2020

Judge: Papik

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Plaintiff's complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that officials within the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (DCS) violated his federal constitutional rights in the calculation of his parole eligibility, holding that the district court did not err in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleged that officials within the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (DCS) violated his federal constitutional rights in calculating his parole eligibility date. In dismissing the complaint, the district court found that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005), precluded him from bringing his complaint because he challenged the fact or duration of his confinement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff failed adequately to allege that DCS violated his federal constitutional rights in any respect.

State v. Dixon

Citation: 306 Neb. 853

Opinion Date: August 21, 2020

Judge: Stacy

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of one count of burglary and one count of theft by receiving stolen property, holding that Defendant's assignments of error were without merit. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence discovered in a warrantless search of a backpack Defendant discarded in a ditch; (2) the district court did not err in admitting the State's evidence pertaining to the value of the stolen property; and (3) the district court did not err in overruling Defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of theft by receiving stolen property.

State v. Wilson

Citation: 306 Neb. 875

Opinion Date: August 21, 2020

Judge: Papik

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the determination of the district court that Defendant committed an aggravated offense and was thus subject to lifetime registration under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), holding that the district court did not err. Defendant pleaded no contest to first degree sexual assault and another related charge. After accepting the pleas, the district court found that Defendant committed an aggravated offense under SORA and was thus subject to a lifetime registration obligation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by determining that Defendant committed an aggravated offense and was therefore required to register under SORA for life.

Braun v. Braun

Citation: 306 Neb. 890

Opinion Date: August 21, 2020

Judge: Stacy

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court finding Corey Braun in willful contempt of court for failing to hold his ex-wife, Jennifer Braun, harmless from joint mortgage debt on the marital home Corey was awarded in the parties' divorce decree, holding that there was no clear error in the court's factual findings and no abuse of discretion in the court's determination of contempt and the imposition of the sanction in this case. Six years after the divorce, Jennifer filed a pleading alleging that Corey had willfully failed to hold her harmless from the mortgage debt on the home and asked that Corey be held in contempt of court. The trial court found Corey in willful contempt of court. As a sanction, the court imposed a delayed jail sentence and a purge plan that allowed Corey to purge himself of contempt by either refinancing the mortgage in his own name by a certain date or selling the property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in determining that Corey's conduct violated the hold harmless provision in the decree and in ordering that he either refinance the mortgage or sell the home.