Nebraska Revised Statute 25-1901

Chapter 25 Section 1901

25-1901.

District court; appellate jurisdiction; scope.

A judgment rendered or final order made by any tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions and inferior in jurisdiction to the district court may be reversed, vacated, or modified by the district court, except that the district court shall not have jurisdiction over (1) appeals from a juvenile court as defined in section 43-245, (2) appeals from a county court in matters arising under the Nebraska Probate Code or the Nebraska Uniform Trust Code, in matters involving adoption or inheritance tax, or in domestic relations matters, or (3) appeals within the jurisdiction of the Tax Equalization and Review Commission.

Source

  • R.S.1867, Code § 580, p. 496;
  • R.S.1913, § 8175;
  • C.S.1922, § 9127;
  • C.S.1929, § 20-1901;
  • R.S.1943, § 25-1901;
  • Laws 1972, LB 1032, § 136;
  • Laws 1974, LB 733, § 2;
  • Laws 1986, LB 529, § 22;
  • Laws 1994, LB 1106, § 1;
  • Laws 1995, LB 538, § 1;
  • Laws 1996, LB 1296, § 4;
  • Laws 2003, LB 130, § 115;
  • Laws 2007, LB167, § 1.

Cross References

  • Nebraska Probate Code, see section 30-2201.
  • Nebraska Uniform Trust Code, see section 30-3801.

Annotations

  • 1. Scope

  • 2. When review allowed

  • 3. When review denied

  • 4. Miscellaneous

  • 1. Scope

  • When an entity such as a city council is exercising its judicial functions, the petition in error statute is the proper method for challenging such actions. Johnson v. City of Kearney, 277 Neb. 481, 763 N.W.2d 103 (2009).

  • Pursuant to this section, a district court has jurisdiction over a petition-in-error proceeding only when it is reviewing a judgment rendered or final order made by any tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions and inferior in jurisdiction to the district court. Clayton v. Lacey, 256 Neb. 282, 589 N.W.2d 529 (1999).

  • This section does not apply to judgments of the county court, and the exclusive method of obtaining district court review of a county court decision is by appeal. Miller v. Brunswick, 253 Neb. 141, 571 N.W.2d 245 (1997).

  • In reviewing the decision of a tribunal in a petition in error proceeding, a court is to determine whether the tribunal acted within its jurisdiction and whether the decision rendered is supported by sufficient relevant evidence and is restricted to the record created before the lower tribunal. Crown Products Co. v. City of Ralston, 253 Neb. 1, 567 N.W.2d 294 (1997).

  • A city council is a tribunal whose decision can be reversed, vacated, or modified by a court of proper jurisdiction. Abboud v. Lakeview, Inc., 237 Neb. 326, 466 N.W.2d 442 (1991).

  • Where no other method of appeal is provided, one may obtain judicial review by proceedings in error under this statute. Moore v. Black, 220 Neb. 122, 368 N.W.2d 488 (1985).

  • A petition in error is designed to review the decision of the inferior tribunal. It is not to act as a super legislative or administrative agency to come to an independent conclusion. Andrews v. City of Fremont, 213 Neb. 148, 328 N.W.2d 194 (1982).

  • The State Board of Education hearing appeals under section 79-1103.05 acts in a quasi-judicial capacity and therefor either party may appeal its decision under this section or under section 84-917. Richardson v. Board of Education, 206 Neb. 18, 290 N.W.2d 803 (1980).

  • Orders of the Department of Public Welfare made pursuant to section 68-1016, may be reviewed by petition in error as well as by appeal. Downer v. Ihms, 192 Neb. 594, 223 N.W.2d 148 (1974).

  • An appeal in a post conviction proceeding from a court inferior to the district court may be taken to the district court only. State v. Williams, 188 Neb. 802, 199 N.W.2d 611 (1972).

  • Granting of disability pension under city ordinance in question was quasi-judicial function; upon refusal to grant pension, proper remedy is by way of petition in error or appeal. Watts v. City of Omaha, 184 Neb. 41, 165 N.W.2d 104 (1969).

  • It is mandatory and jurisdictional under this section that a petition in error be filed in the appellate court and a properly authenticated transcript be filed within one calendar month after the rendition of the judgment or final order. Friedman v. State, 183 Neb. 9, 157 N.W.2d 855 (1968).

  • In a proceeding under this section, it is mandatory that the transcript be properly authenticated and timely filed to vest the appellate court with jurisdiction of the subject matter. Lemburg v. Nielsen, 182 Neb. 747, 157 N.W.2d 381 (1968).

  • Denial of petition for incorporation of a village may be reviewed by petition in error. Little v. Board of County Commissioners, 179 Neb. 655, 140 N.W.2d 1 (1966).

  • In a proceeding under this section it is mandatory that a petition in error and transcript be timely filed to vest appellate court with jurisdiction. Frankforter v. Turner, 175 Neb. 252, 121 N.W.2d 377 (1963); Harms v. County Board of Supervisors, 173 Neb. 687, 114 N.W.2d 713 (1962).

  • This and succeeding nine sections provide an effective procedure to secure a review by the district court of a final order made by the county court. Consolidated Credit Corporation v. Berger, 141 Neb. 598, 4 N.W.2d 571 (1942).

  • This section is in pari materia with section providing for appeal in probate cases. In re Estate of Mathews, 125 Neb. 737, 252 N.W. 210 (1933).

  • Order approving executor's account, requiring further report, and continuing proceedings, was not "final order." In re Hansen's Estate, 117 Neb. 551, 221 N.W. 694 (1928).

  • Error proceedings lie to review proceedings in justice court to try right of property. McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Scott, 66 Neb. 479, 92 N.W. 599 (1902).

  • Section is broad enough to include decree of adoption of probate court. Ferguson v. Herr, 64 Neb. 649, 90 N.W. 625 (1902), reversed on rehearing 64 Neb. 659, 94 N.W. 542 (1903).

  • To take error proceedings, there must be a final order or judgment. Reynolds v. City of Tecumseh, 48 Neb. 785, 67 N.W. 792 (1896).

  • 2. When review allowed

  • Where a city building board of review received evidence and considered statements by the applicant and city officials before making its determination of whether the facts supported the notice of violation, the board exercised "judicial functions." McNally v. City of Omaha, 273 Neb. 558, 731 N.W.2d 573 (2007).

  • A petition in error is the proper proceeding to obtain review of an action of a city council, which is a tribunal inferior to the district court. In reviewing a decision based on a petition in error, an appellate court determines whether the inferior tribunal acted within its jurisdiction and whether the inferior tribunal's decision is supported by sufficient relevant evidence. Luet, Inc. v. City of Omaha, 247 Neb. 831, 530 N.W.2d 633 (1995).

  • A decision by the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services Appeals Board will not be reviewed by the district court unless a petition for review is filed within the 30-day limit prescribed by section 25-1931. Lewis v. Camp, 236 Neb. 94, 459 N.W.2d 211 (1990).

  • A petitioner in error must, within one calendar month after judgment is announced under the law and facts by an inferior tribunal, file his petition with a transcript containing the final judgment sought to be reversed. Marcotte v. City of Omaha, 196 Neb. 217, 241 N.W.2d 838 (1976).

  • Orders made in the exercise of judicial functions by a board inferior to the district court are reviewable by error proceedings. Emry v. Lake, 181 Neb. 568, 149 N.W.2d 520 (1967).

  • Changes made by county superintendent of schools in proceedings to change school district boundaries may be reviewed in district court either by appeal or by error proceedings. Moser v. Turner, 180 Neb. 635, 144 N.W.2d 192 (1966).

  • It is only where a tribunal acts judicially that a review by error proceedings is allowed. Longe v. County of Wayne, 175 Neb. 245, 121 N.W.2d 196 (1963).

  • Review may be had by petition in error of proceedings by city council in the levy of special assessments for paving. Elliott v. City of Auburn, 172 Neb. 1, 108 N.W.2d 328 (1961).

  • Final order of city council could be reviewed by error proceedings. Simpson v. City of Grand Island, 166 Neb. 393, 89 N.W.2d 117 (1958).

  • Order of county superintendent of schools may be reviewed by error proceedings. School Dist. No. 49 of Merrick County v. Kreidler, 165 Neb. 761, 87 N.W.2d 429 (1958).

  • Order of Superintendent of Public Instruction was reviewable by petition in error. Schutte v. Schmitt, 162 Neb. 162, 75 N.W.2d 656 (1956).

  • Action taken in reorganization of school district could be reviewed in district court. School District No. 49 of Lincoln County v. School District No. 65-R of Lincoln County, 159 Neb. 262, 66 N.W.2d 561 (1954).

  • Review in district court of appraisement of improvements on school lands was authorized. Jessen v. Blackard, 159 Neb. 103, 65 N.W.2d 345 (1954).

  • Error proceedings to district court were available to review action of county committee under Reorganization of School Districts Act. Nickel v. School Board of Axtell, 157 Neb. 813, 61 N.W.2d 566 (1953).

  • Error proceedings were available to review action appraising improvements on school land leases. From v. Sutton, 156 Neb. 411, 56 N.W.2d 441 (1953).

  • District court may review county court's exercise of probate jurisdiction by proceedings in error. In re Berg's Estate, 139 Neb. 99, 296 N.W. 460 (1941).

  • Error may be prosecuted from denial by Department of Trade and Commerce of permit to installment investment company to do business in state. Investor's Syndicate v. Bryan, 113 Neb. 816, 205 N.W. 294 (1925).

  • Order of State Banking Board on application for charger is reviewable by district court in error proceedings. Shumway v. Warrick, 108 Neb. 652, 189 N.W. 301 (1922).

  • Order by board of equalization of metropolitan water district is reviewable by district court on error. McCague Inv. Co. v. Metropolitan Water Dist., 101 Neb. 820, 165 N.W. 158 (1917).

  • The action of the State Banking Board in granting or refusing a bank charter is reviewable by petition in error in the district court. State ex rel. White v. Morehead, 101 Neb. 37, 161 N.W. 1040 (1917).

  • Conviction of civil contempt before justice of peace can be reviewed only by error proceedings. Hanika v. State, 87 Neb. 845, 128 N.W. 526 (1910).

  • Review on error of judgments of justices of the peace still exists. Engles v. Morgenstern, 85 Neb. 51, 122 N.W. 688 (1909).

  • Order of State Board of Health revoking physician's license is reviewable. Mathews v. Hedlund, 82 Neb. 825, 119 N.W. 17 (1908).

  • Action of State Board of Equalization may be reviewed in district court by petition in error. State ex rel. U.P.R.R. Co. v. State Board of Equalization & Assessment, 81 Neb. 139, 115 N.W. 789 (1908).

  • District court has jurisdiction to review by proceedings in error an order revoking physician's license. Munk v. Frink, 75 Neb. 172, 106 N.W. 425 (1905).

  • Order of county court allowing claim against estate may be reviewed in district court on error. Herman v. Beck, 68 Neb. 566, 94 N.W. 512 (1903).

  • Order of county superintendent changing boundaries or creating new districts is reviewable by error proceedings. Pollack v. School Dist. No. 42 of Antelope County, 54 Neb. 171, 74 N.W. 393 (1898).

  • Judgment of county or city board of equalization may be reviewed by an error proceeding. Webster v. City of Lincoln, 50 Neb. 1, 69 N.W. 394 (1896).

  • Proceedings in hearing on habeas corpus may be reviewed on error. In re Van Sciever, 42 Neb. 772, 60 N.W. 1037 (1894).

  • Review of order of county board of equalization can be had by error proceedings. Waltham v. Town of Mullally, 27 Neb. 483, 43 N.W. 252 (1889).

  • Judgments or final orders of county court may be reviewed in error proceedings. Rudolf v. Winters, 7 Neb. 125 (1878).

  • An appeal from a special assessment by a metropolitan-class city taken as specified in section 14-813 means that proceedings from a district court shall be the same as an appeal from a county board, and under this section, that means appeal is taken by petition in error and the review is solely of the record made before the tribunal whose action is being reviewed. Jackson v. Board of Equal. of City of Omaha, 10 Neb. App. 330, 630 N.W.2d 680 (2001).

  • District court may review by error proceedings action of State Board of Equalization and Assessment in taxing air-flight equipment. Mid-Continent Airlines v. Nebraska State Board of Equalization and Assessment, 105 F.Supp. 188 (D. Neb. 1952).

  • 3. When review denied

  • The specific statutory procedure for appealing local administrative decisions to a board of adjustment foreclosed a landowner's ability to appeal by a petition in error the county board of supervisors' denial of a conditional use permit. Mogensen v. Board of Supervisors, 268 Neb. 26, 679 N.W.2d 413 (2004).

  • A decision by the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services Appeals Board will not be reviewed by the district court unless a petition for review is filed within the 30-day limit prescribed by section 25-1931. Lewis v. Camp, 236 Neb. 94, 459 N.W.2d 211 (1990).

  • Probate judgments of the county court may not be brought to the district court for review by the error proceedings contemplated in this section. In re Guardianship of Potter, 235 Neb. 149, 453 N.W.2d 755 (1990).

  • A 1974 amendment to this statute was intended to eliminate proceedings in error as a method of obtaining district court review of a county court decision; thus, the action was properly dismissed. SapaNajin v. Wolford, 222 Neb. 387, 383 N.W.2d 796 (1986).

  • Where errors assigned require review of evidence they cannot be considered on either appeal or error proceedings in absence of a bill of exceptions. Lanc v. Douglas County Welfare Administration, 189 Neb. 651, 204 N.W.2d 387 (1973).

  • Cited in holding that order of county superintendent was not reviewable by error proceedings. Kosmicki v. Kowalski, 184 Neb. 639, 171 N.W.2d 172 (1969).

  • Appeal or error proceedings do not lie from purely legislative acts by public bodies having legislative power; passage of a zoning ordinance is a legislative act. Scottsbluff Improvement Assn. v. City of Scottsbluff, 183 Neb. 722, 164 N.W.2d 215 (1969).

  • An order of an administrative officer is not reviewable by error proceedings under this section unless the officer exercised judicial functions. School Dist. No. 23 of Dakota County v. School Dist. No. 11 of Dakota County, 181 Neb. 305, 148 N.W.2d 301 (1967).

  • Findings of administrative board acting in a judicial capacity cannot be collaterally attacked. Cacek v. Munson, 160 Neb. 187, 69 N.W.2d 692 (1955).

  • Review in district court of action of county board, making assessments for benefit of drainage district, is by error proceedings and not by appeal. Loup River Public Power Dist. v. Platte County, 135 Neb. 21, 280 N.W. 430 (1938).

  • Legislature has provided no appeal to district court from act of city council of city of second class sitting as board of equalization to levy special assessments for paving, and jurisdiction cannot be conferred on district court by consent of parties. Roberts v. City of Mitchell, 131 Neb. 672, 269 N.W. 515 (1936).

  • The discretion exercised by a county board of commissioners under sections 39-1722 and 39-1725 is not judicial in nature, and as such, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to hear a petition in error under this section. Camp Clarke Ranch v. Morrill Cty. Bd. of Comrs., 17 Neb. App. 76, 758 N.W.2d 653 (2008).

  • 4. Miscellaneous

  • A board exercises a judicial function if it decides a dispute of adjudicative fact or if a statute requires it to act in a judicial manner. Because teacher's pay scale grievance did not present a dispute of adjudicative fact and school board was not required by statute to act in a judicial manner when administering pay scale grievances, district court lacked jurisdiction to hear teacher's petition in error. Kropp v. Grand Island Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 2, 246 Neb. 138, 517 N.W.2d 113 (1994).

  • All parties interested must be made parties to review by error proceedings. Clausen v. School Dist. No. 33 of Lincoln County, 164 Neb. 78, 81 N.W.2d 822 (1957).

  • Proceedings in error afford remedy to correct errors of quasi-judicial tribunal. Jungman v. Coolidge, 157 Neb. 122, 58 N.W.2d 828 (1953).

  • An agreement between parties to an appeal from county court pending in district court, made without knowledge or consent of surety on appeal bond, to effect that defendant dismiss his appeal with costs taxed to defendant and that plaintiff withhold issuing execution for three months and four days after dismissal of appeal, operated as release of surety on appeal bond. New Idea Spreader Co. v. Brown, 129 Neb. 551, 262 N.W. 51 (1935).

  • Council's determination of sufficiency of abutting owner's objections to paving is judicial function; becomes final in absence of proceedings to review. Hiddleson v. City of Grand Island, 115 Neb. 287, 212 N.W. 619 (1927).

  • On review by error proceedings of order of probate court, petition in error must be filed. Baacke v. Dredla, 57 Neb. 92, 77 N.W. 341 (1898).