(1) Any person aggrieved by an order or act of the department under the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act may, within thirty days after notice thereof, file a petition in the district court of the county where the aggrieved person resides, but in the event the aggrieved person is a nonresident, then such petition shall be filed in the district court of Lancaster County for a review thereof. The filing of such petition shall suspend the order or act pending a final determination of the review. The license or registration of any person claiming to be aggrieved shall not be restored to such person in the event the final judgment of a court finds against such person until the full time of revocation as fixed by the department shall have elapsed. The court shall summarily hear the petition as a case in equity without a jury and may make any appropriate order or decree.
(2) The appeal procedures described in the Administrative Procedure Act shall not apply to this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases, 1952–2002 · leading case:
Shirley v. Neth, 646 N.W.2d 587 (Neb. 2002).
Shirley v. Neth, 646 N.W.2d 587 (Neb. 2002).
· cites it 28× “NATURE OF CASE Edward Shirley filed a petition under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-503 (Reissue 1998) in the district court for Douglas County in which he alleged in his first count that the suspension of his driver’s license by Beverly Neth, director of the Department of Motor Vehicles,…”
Wollenburg v. Conrad, 522 N.W.2d 408 (Neb. 1994).
· cites it 4× “Thereupon, pending a final court decision, the suspension was automatically stayed pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-503 (Reissue 1993). Following trial, the district court affirmed the suspension of Wollenburg’s driver’s license.”
Hadden v. Aitken, 55 N.W.2d 620 (Neb. 1952).
· cites it 2× “Appellants again raise their motion to dismiss the proceedings.”
Wroblewski v. Pearson, 313 N.W.2d 231 (Neb. 1981).
· cites it 3× “Upon appeal to the District Court, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-503 (Reissue 1978), the trial court determined that the burden was upon the Department of Motor Vehicles to prove the validity of its order.”
Russell v. State, 531 N.W.2d 212 (Neb. 1995).
· cites it 2× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-503 (2) (Reissue 1993).”
Hehn v. State, Dept. of Motor Vehs., 290 N.W.2d 813 (Neb. 1980).
· cites it 2× “This action, although not specifically designated as such by the parties in their pleadings, is conceded by the briefs to be pursuant to the provisions of § 60-503, which provide that: Any person aggrieved by an order or act of *35 the department under the provisions of sections…”
Montgomery v. Blazek, 73 N.W.2d 402 (Neb. 1955).
· cites it 2× “The plaintiff, being dissatisfied with the order of the department, could have resorted to section 60-503, R. R. S. 1943, which in part provides as follows: “Any person aggrieved by an order or act of the department, under the provisions of sections 60-501 to 60-569, may, within…”
Berg v. Pearson, 259 N.W.2d 275 (Neb. 1977).
“§ 60-503, R. R. S. 1943. The issue upon the petition for review is the same as that which was before the Director although the District Court must consider any additional facts developed in the hearing in the District Court.”
Schetzer v. Sullivan, 229 N.W.2d 550 (Neb. 1975).
· cites it 4× “Charles Robert Schetzer, appellant, appeals from a judgment dismissing his petition filed pursuant to section 60-503, R. R. S. 1943, contesting an order of suspension of his driver’s license.”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-503(1): 1 case
Shirley v. Neth, 646 N.W.2d 587 (Neb. 2002).
“NATURE OF CASE Edward Shirley filed a petition under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-503 (Reissue 1998) in the district court for Douglas County in which he alleged in his first count that the suspension of his driver’s license by Beverly Neth, director of the Department of Motor Vehicles,…”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-503(2): 1 case
Wollenburg v. Conrad, 522 N.W.2d 408 (Neb. 1994).
“Thereupon, pending a final court decision, the suspension was automatically stayed pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-503 (Reissue 1993). Following trial, the district court affirmed the suspension of Wollenburg’s driver’s license.”
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.