Latest 6 Cases: State v. Denton (Constitutional Law), State v. Canady (Criminal Law), State v. Gray (Criminal Law)

Reflections on the Pending Supreme Court Challenge to the Affordable Care Act in California v. Texas: Part One in a Series

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, EVAN CAMINKER, JASON MAZZONE

In this first of a series of columns on the latest prominent challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Illinois law dean Vikram David Amar, Michigan Law dean emeritus Evan Caminker, and Illinois law professor Jason Mazzone examine the stare decisis effects of the Supreme Court’s initial blockbuster decision involving the ACA. The authors demonstrate several, perhaps surprising, ways that the earlier decision should shape how the Court views the present challenge.

Read More

State v. Denton

Citation: 307 Neb. 400

Opinion Date: October 2, 2020

Judge: William B. Cassel

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for violating a municipal ordinance prohibiting battery, holding that the Court was unable to read the merits of Defendant's appeal because he failed to provide notice, as required by Neb. Ct. R. App. P. 2-109(E). Defendant was denied a jury trial for his alleged violation of a municipal ordinance prohibiting battery despite a separate ordinance imposing a ten-year ban upon possession of firearms by a person convicted of violating the battery ordinance. Following a bench trial, the county court convicted Defendant of violating the battery ordinance. The district court affirmed. Defendant appealed, implicitly challenging the constitutionality of Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-2705, which prohibits jury trials for criminal cases arising under city ordinances. Defendant, however, failed to comply with the procedural rule governing constitutional challenges to statutes. The Supreme Court affirmed after strictly applying Rule 2-109(E), holding that the Court was unable to reach the merits of Defendant's appeal because he failed to provide the notice required by Rule 2-109(E).

State v. Canady

Citation: 307 Neb. 407

Opinion Date: October 2, 2020

Judge: Stacy

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences in two cases in which he entered into no contest pleas to felony charges, holding that there was no error. In two separate cases, Defendant was charged with multiple felonies. Defendant entered pleas of no contest in both cases. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in not allowing him to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing and in imposing excessive sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea based not understand the Nebraska Sex Offender Registration Act consequences; and (2) there was no abuse of discretion in the imposition of Defendant's sentences.

State v. Gray

Citation: 307 Neb. 418

Opinion Date: October 2, 2020

Judge: Freudenberg

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court imposing a life sentence for a second degree murder conviction to run consecutively with a sentence of twenty-five to thirty-five years' imprisonment for use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, holding that the district court did not impose an excessive sentence. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant was convicted of second degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. The district court imposed a life sentence for the second degree murder conviction and a consecutive sentence of twenty-five to thirty-five years' imprisonment for the use of a deadly weapon conviction. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the sentence imposed by the district court was not excessive.

State v. Hurd

Citation: 307 Neb. 393

Opinion Date: October 2, 2020

Judge: Michael G. Heavican

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for child abuse, holding that the plain language of Neb. Rev. Stat. 81-1848 allows a victim both to fill out a victim impact statement to be included in the presentence investigation report and also to write and read a separate letter to be offered at the defendant's sentencing hearing. Defendant pled no contest to one count of misdemeanor child abuse. After a hearing, Defendant was sentenced to one year's imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the district court abused its discretion by allowing the victim to submit a statement to be included in the presentence investigation report and also allowing her to read a separate letter that was offered into evidence for purposes of resentencing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's first assignment of error was without merit; and (2) Defendant's sentence was not excessive.

In re Claim of Roberts for Attorney Fees

Citation: 307 Neb. 346

Opinion Date: October 2, 2020

Judge: Stacy

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Court affirmed a series of orders fixing fees for court-appointed counsel in a juvenile proceeding, holding that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion. After Mother's children were adjudicated under Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-247(3)(a) the State moved to terminate Mother's parental rights. The juvenile court denied the State's motion following a trial. The court of appeals affirmed. Thereafter, Mother filed three fee applications seeking payment for services rendered by court-appointed counsel. The court found Mother's requested fees were fair and reasonable and allowed the fee applications. The Supreme Court affirmed after clarifying the statutory framework for appealing such orders, holding that there was no abuse of discretion.

Yori v. Helms

Citation: 307 Neb. 375

Opinion Date: October 2, 2020

Judge: William B. Cassel

Areas of Law: Family Law

After Appellant appealed an order of the district court finding him in contempt of court and modifying terms of a parenting plan, the Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal from an order of commitment and a purge order containing a reduction in Appellant's parenting time, holding that, as to the first appeal, there was no abuse of discretion, and that, as to the second appeal, there was no final order. The district court found Appellant in contempt of court for violating parenting provisions of a dissolution decree, imposed a suspended jail sentence, and modified terms of the parenting plan in this case. Appellant appealed this order. While the appeal was pending, the court entered an order of commitment and a purge order reducing Appellant's parenting time but setting the matter for a future review hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed as to the first appeal and dismissed the second appeal for lack of a final order, holding (1) the modifications at issue in the first appeal were part of the equitable relief the court had the authority to provide; and (2) the second appeal was not taken from a final order.