Annotations

• 1. Appeal from district court

• 2. Appeal from administrative agency

• 3. Miscellaneous

• 1. Appeal from district court

• An appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review a judgment rendered or a final order made by the district court under this section if the district court lacked jurisdiction under section 84-917 to review the underlying petition. Swicord v. Police Stds. Adv. Council, 314 Neb. 816, 993 N.W.2d 327 (2023).

• A judgment or final order rendered by a district court in a judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act may be reversed, vacated, or modified by an appellate court for errors appearing on the record. When reviewing such an order, the inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable. Parker v. State ex rel. Bruning, 276 Neb. 359, 753 N.W.2d 843 (2008).

• On an appeal under the Administrative Procedure Act, an appellate court reviews the judgment of the district court for errors appearing on the record and will not substitute its factual findings for those of the district court where competent evidence supports those findings. When reviewing an order of a district court under the Administrative Procedure Act for errors appearing on the record, the inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable. Inner Harbour Hospitals v. State, 251 Neb. 793, 559 N.W.2d 487 (1997).

• Appeals from a district court decision involving petitions filed on or after July 1, 1989, are reviewed for errors appearing on the record. Slack Nsg. Home v. Department of Soc. Servs., 247 Neb. 452, 528 N.W.2d 285 (1995).

• Under subsection (2) of this section, the standard of review on appeal from a declaratory judgment action filed under the Administrative Procedure Act in the district court prior to July 1, 1989, is de novo on the record. Loewenstein v. State, 244 Neb. 82, 504 N.W.2d 800 (1993).

• An appellate court, in reviewing a judgment of the district court for errors appearing on the record, will not substitute its factual findings for those of the district court where competent evidence supports those findings. Davis v. Wright, 243 Neb. 931, 503 N.W.2d 814 (1993).

• Appeals from the district court under the Administrative Procedure Act to the Supreme Court are reviewed de novo on the record if the district court proceeding was commenced prior to July 1, 1989. Caudill v. Surgical Concepts, Inc., 236 Neb. 266, 460 N.W.2d 662 (1990).

• Supreme Court reviews de novo on the record an appeal from the district court's review of a decision of the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission. Father Flanagan's Boys' Home v. Goerke, 224 Neb. 731, 401 N.W.2d 461 (1987).

• On appeal of review by the district court of an order of the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission, the Supreme Court will not disturb the district court's findings if they are supported by substantial evidence. Zalkins Peerless Co. v. Nebraska Equal Opp. Comm., 217 Neb. 289, 348 N.W.2d 846 (1984).

• Where district court had only cold record before it, the rule pertaining to Supreme Court's consideration of the opportunity of the trial court in equity to observe the witnesses is inapplicable. C & L Co. v. Nebraska Liquor Control Commission, 190 Neb. 91, 206 N.W.2d 49 (1973).

• A final order rendered by a district court in a judicial review pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act may be reversed, vacated, or modified by an appellate court for errors appearing on the record. Boruch v. Nebraska Dept. of Health and Human Servs., 11 Neb. App. 713, 659 N.W.2d 848 (2003).

• 2. Appeal from administrative agency

• The appropriate standard of review for the Supreme Court in an appeal from an administrative agency's decision is found in this section, which prescribes a review of an agency's decision de novo on the record without the limitation imposed on the district court under former section 84-917(6)(e) and (6)(f). Golden Five v. Department of Soc. Serv., 229 Neb. 148, 425 N.W.2d 865 (1988).

• The Supreme Court's review of an administrative agency's decision is de novo on the record; as such, the court makes independent findings of fact without reference to those made by the agency whose action is being reviewed. Dieter v. State, 228 Neb. 368, 422 N.W.2d 560 (1988); Department of Health v. Grand Island Health Care, 223 Neb. 587, 391 N.W.2d 582 (1986).

• The Supreme Court reviews an administrative agency's decision de novo on the record. Department of Health v. Lutheran Hosp. & Homes Soc., 227 Neb. 116, 416 N.W.2d 222 (1987); Zybach v. State, 226 Neb. 396, 411 N.W.2d 627 (1987); City of Omaha v. Omaha Police Union Local 101, 222 Neb. 197, 382 N.W.2d 613 (1986).

• The Supreme Court's review of an agency's decision under the Administrative Procedure Act is de novo on the record. Haeffner v. State, 220 Neb. 560, 371 N.W.2d 658 (1985).

• In appeal from the Liquor Control Commission, the Supreme Court determines only whether findings of the commission are supported by substantial evidence and whether district court applied the proper statutory criteria. The 20's, Inc. v. Nebraska Liquor Control Commission, 190 Neb. 761, 212 N.W.2d 344 (1973).

• 3. Miscellaneous

• In conducting its de novo review under the provisions of this section, the Nebraska Supreme Court is required to make independent findings of fact without reference to those made by the tribunal from which the appeal was taken. Meier v. State, 227 Neb. 376, 417 N.W.2d 771 (1988).