If, upon hearing of a petition filed pursuant to section 14-413 it appears to the district court that testimony is necessary for the proper disposition of the matter, the court may take evidence or appoint a referee to take such evidence as the court may direct and report such evidence to the court with findings of fact and conclusions of law, which shall constitute a part of the proceedings upon which the determination of the court shall be made. The court may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the decision brought up for review. Costs shall not be allowed against the zoning board of appeals, unless it shall appear to the court that such board acted with gross negligence or in bad faith or with malice in making the decision appealed from. All issues in any proceeding under sections 14-408 to 14-414 shall have preference over all other civil actions and proceedings.
Notes of Decisions
Kuhlmann v. City of Omaha, 556 N.W.2d 15 (Neb. 1996).
· cites it 5× “We conclude that pursuant to § 14-413 and Neb. Rev. Stat. § 14-414 (Reissue 1991), the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the City’s counterclaim or to order injunctions against Kuhlmann.”
Goodman v. City of Omaha, 742 N.W.2d 26 (Neb. 2007).
· cites it 2× “Section 14-414 provides that the district court’s authority is limited to the power to reverse, modify, or affirm the decision brought before that court for review.”
Stratbucker Child.'s Trust v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 497 N.W.2d 671 (Neb. 1993).
· cites it 4× “The court, taking additional evidence pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 14-414 (Reissue 1991), found that Stratbucker had in fact complied with the conditions of the waiver.”
Peterson v. Vasak, 76 N.W.2d 420 (Neb. 1956).
“§ 14-414, R. R. S. 1943; Roncka v. Fogarty, supra; Schaible v.”
Roncka v. Fogarty, 41 N.W.2d 745 (Neb. 1950).
· cites it 2× “Section 14-414 provides that the court may take evidence, and is empowered to reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the decision brought up for review.”
Morello v. City of Omaha Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 565 N.W.2d 41 (Neb. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 7× “In support of this contention, Morello observes that under § 14-413 and Neb. Rev. Stat. § 14-414 (Reissue 1991), a party aggrieved by a decision of a zoning board must file a petition to initiate a review of the board’s decision and that the district court may hear additional…”
Eastroads, L.L.C. v. Omaha Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 587 N.W.2d 413 (Neb. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 4× “3 specifically provides for an appeal from the decision of a zoning board to a district court as follows: Any person or persons, jointly or severally aggrieved by any decision of the board of appeals, or any officer, department, board or bureau of the municipality, may present…”
Morello v. City of Omaha Zoning Bd., 565 N.W.2d 41 (Neb. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 7× “In support of this contention, Morello observes that under § 14-413 and Neb.Rev.Stat. § 14-414 (Reissue 1991), a party aggrieved by a decision of a zoning board must file a petition to initiate a review of the board's decision and that the district court may hear additional…”
McEwen v. Nebraska State Coll. Sys., 303 Neb. 552 (Neb. 2019).
· cites it 2× “” 40 The outcome in Goodman was clear. We held that because the district court was acting as an intermediate court of appeals and not as a trial court, a motion to alter or amend was inappropriate and would not terminate the time for filing an appeal.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.