(1) Unless otherwise provided by statute, any person aggrieved by a final decision or order of the director or the Department of Motor Vehicles to cancel, suspend, revoke, or refuse to issue or renew any operator's license, any decision of the director, or suspension of an operator's license under the License Suspension Act may appeal to either the district court of the county in which the person originally applied for the license or the district court of the county in which such person resides or, in the case of a nonresident, to the district court of Lancaster County within thirty days after the date of the final decision or order.

(2) Summons shall be served on the department within thirty days after the filing of the petition in the manner provided for service of a summons in section 25-510.02. Within thirty days after service of the petition and summons, the department shall prepare and transmit to the petitioner a certified copy of the official record of the proceedings before the department. The department shall require payment of a five-dollar fee prior to the transmittal of the official record. The petitioner shall file the transcript with the court within fourteen days after receiving the transcript from the department.

(3) The district court shall hear the appeal as in equity without a jury and determine anew all questions raised before the director. Either party may appeal from the decision of the district court to the Court of Appeals.

(4) The appeal procedures described in the Administrative Procedure Act shall not apply to this section.

Annotations

1. Appeal

2. Miscellaneous

1. Appeal

A letter from the Department of Motor Vehicles explaining the applicable law did not permit it to reinstate a commercial driver's license was not a final decision which canceled, suspended, revoked, or refused to issue or renew an operator's license and was not final and appealable. Woodward v. Lahm, 295 Neb. 698, 890 N.W.2d 493 (2017).

Filing of transcript of the proceedings of the Department of Motor Vehicles relating to the revocation of a driver's license within the time set out in this section is a necessary step to the acquisition of subject matter jurisdiction of an implied consent proceeding by the district court and the Supreme Court. Ernest v. Jensen, 226 Neb. 759, 415 N.W.2d 121 (1987).

Normally, trial court's findings in revocation case are reviewed de novo in Supreme Court, but sustaining motion to dismiss appeal to district court will be affirmed where evidence presents no questions of fact. Porter v. Jensen, 223 Neb. 438, 390 N.W.2d 511 (1986).

Filing in the district court does not satisfy the requirement of this section that the bond be filed in the office of the director of the Department of Motor Vehicles within twenty days of the order concerning which complaint is made. Bammer v. Jensen, 222 Neb. 400, 384 N.W.2d 263 (1986).

The execution, approval, and filing of the bond required by this section are necessary steps to the acquisition of subject matter jurisdiction of an implied consent proceeding by the district court. Bammer v. Jensen, 222 Neb. 400, 384 N.W.2d 263 (1986).

When seeking to appeal an order of the director of the Department of Motor Vehicles, the appellant must execute and file the required bond within twenty days of the date of the final order complained of; such filing is a jurisdictional requirement and condition precedent to the initiation of the appellate process. Black v. State, 218 Neb. 572, 358 N.W.2d 181 (1984).

An appeal from an order of the Department of Motor Vehicles under this section to revoke a driver's license under section 39-669.16 (transferred to section 60-498.02) is in the nature of a proceeding in review of administrative agency, and such appeal is commenced or perfected by filing a petition within thirty days of the service of the final decision of the director and causing a summons to issue on the petition and be served within six months of such filing. Making an administrative agency a party defendant in an appeal under the provisions of this section or section 84-917(2) is not an action against the state within the meaning of section 24-319 (transferred to section 25-21,201) et seq. so as to require service of summons on the Governor and Attorney General. Leach v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 213 Neb. 103, 327 N.W.2d 615 (1982).

On appeal to the district court from an order of the Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles made under section 39-669.16 (transferred to section 60-498.02), revoking a motor vehicle operator's license, the burden of proof is on the licensee to establish by a preponderance of the evidence the ground for reversal. Barton v. Director of Department of Motor Vehicles, 194 Neb. 765, 235 N.W.2d 863 (1975).

On appeal to district court from order of Director of Motor Vehicles under section 39-669.16 (transferred to section 60-498.02) revoking operator's license, the burden is on licensee to establish ground for reversal. Mackey v. Director of Department of Motor Vehicles, 194 Neb. 707, 235 N.W.2d 394 (1975).

The requirement that a petition on appeal be filed in the district court within thirty days from filing of final order of the director is mandatory and jurisdictional. Miller v. Sullivan, 194 Neb. 127, 230 N.W.2d 226 (1975).

Filing required bond within twenty days after revocation under point system is jurisdictional and a condition precedent to initiation of appeal process. Buettner v. Sullivan, 191 Neb. 592, 216 N.W.2d 872 (1974).

On appeal from order of revocation of a motor vehicle operator's license under the implied consent law, review is de novo as in equity. Wiseman v. Sullivan, 190 Neb. 724, 211 N.W.2d 906 (1973).

On appeal from the order of the Director of Motor Vehicles, the director shall furnish a transcript of the proceedings had before him and the appellant shall file it in the district court as provided in this section. Doran v. Johns, 186 Neb. 321, 182 N.W.2d 900 (1971).

Filing of approved bond within twenty days is a condition precedent to initiation of appeal; approval of bond by Auditor of Public Accounts is a jurisdictional requirement. Lydick v. Johns, 185 Neb. 716, 178 N.W.2d 581 (1970).

In an appeal from an implied consent proceeding such district court as used in this section refers to district court for county where events occurred for which arrest was made. Peck v. Dunlevey, 184 Neb. 812, 172 N.W.2d 613 (1969).

Appeal may be taken from revocation of driver's license under implied consent law. Prucha v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 172 Neb. 415, 110 N.W.2d 75 (1961).

Statutes provide for direct attack by appeal from revocation of operator's license. Stewart v. Ress, 164 Neb. 876, 83 N.W.2d 901 (1957).

2. Miscellaneous

The director acts ministerially in revoking driver's license under point system, and appeal procedures contemplate a full evidentiary hearing which meets due process requirements of federal and state constitutions. State v. Lessert, 188 Neb. 243, 196 N.W.2d 166 (1972).

In addition to provision for appeal from revocation of motor vehicle operator's license under section 39-7,130 (transferred to section 60-4,184), R.R.S.1943, the procedures authorized by this section are available. Stauffer v. Weedlun, 188 Neb. 105, 195 N.W.2d 218 (1972).

At a hearing before the Director of Motor Vehicles to revoke an operator's license under the Implied Consent Law, findings of fact are sufficient to support a revocation order if they concisely state conclusions favorable to the order upon each contested issue of fact. Prigge v. Johns, 186 Neb. 761, 186 N.W.2d 497 (1971).

Validity of prior judgment of conviction cannot be raised on direct appeal. Bradford v. Ress, 167 Neb. 338, 93 N.W.2d 17 (1958).

Procedure under this section was properly invoked to challenge revocation of license under point system act. Durfee v. Ress, 163 Neb. 768, 81 N.W.2d 148 (1957).