(1) Any person aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case, whether such decision is affirmative or negative in form, shall be entitled to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent resort to other means of review, redress, or relief provided by law.
(2)(a)(i) Proceedings for review shall be instituted by filing a petition in the district court of the county where the action is taken within thirty days after the service of the final decision by the agency. All parties of record shall be made parties to the proceedings for review. A party of record for district court proceedings for review shall include any person who appeared either personally or through an attorney, who was a participant in the agency's contested hearing, and who was treated as a party by the agency's hearing officer. If an agency's only role in a contested case is to act as a neutral factfinding body, the agency shall not be a party of record. In all other cases, the agency shall be a party of record. Summons shall be served on the agency within thirty days of the filing of the petition in the manner provided for service of a summons in section 25-510.02. Summons on any nongovernmental parties shall be served within thirty days of the filing of the petition in the manner provided for service of summons in a civil action. If the agency whose decision is appealed from is not a party of record, the petitioner shall serve a copy of the petition and a request for preparation of the official record upon the agency within thirty days of the filing of the petition. The court, in its discretion, may permit other interested persons to intervene.
(ii) The filing of a petition for review shall vest in a responding party of record the right to a cross-appeal against any other party of record. A respondent shall serve its cross-appeal within thirty days after being served with the summons and petition for review.
(b) A petition for review shall set forth: (i) The name and mailing address of the petitioner; (ii) the name and mailing address of the agency whose action is at issue; (iii) identification of the final decision at issue together with a duplicate copy of the final decision; (iv) identification of the parties in the contested case that led to the final decision; (v) facts to demonstrate proper venue; (vi) the petitioner's reasons for believing that relief should be granted; and (vii) a request for relief, specifying the type and extent of the relief requested.
(3) The filing of the petition or the service of summons upon such agency shall not stay enforcement of a decision. The agency may order a stay. The court may order a stay after notice of the application therefor to such agency and to all parties of record. If the agency has found that its action on an application for stay or other temporary remedies is justified to protect against a substantial threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, the court may not grant relief unless the court finds that: (a) The applicant is likely to prevail when the court finally disposes of the matter; (b) without relief, the applicant will suffer irreparable injuries; (c) the grant of relief to the applicant will not substantially harm other parties to the proceedings; and (d) the threat to the public health, safety, or welfare relied on by the agency is not sufficiently serious to justify the agency's action in the circumstances. The court may require the party requesting such stay to give bond in such amount and conditioned as the court may direct.
(4) Within thirty days after service of the petition or within such further time as the court for good cause shown may allow, the agency shall prepare and transmit to the clerk of the district court in which the petition is filed a certified copy of the official record of the proceedings had before the agency. Such official record shall include: (a) Notice of all proceedings; (b) any pleadings, motions, requests, preliminary or intermediate rulings and orders, and similar correspondence to or from the agency pertaining to the contested case; (c) the transcribed record of the hearing before the agency, including all exhibits and evidence introduced during such hearing, a statement of matters officially noticed by the agency during the proceeding, and all proffers of proof and objections and rulings thereon; and (d) the final order appealed from. The agency shall charge the petitioner with the reasonable direct cost or require the petitioner to pay the cost for preparing the official record for transmittal to the court in all cases except when the petitioner is not required to pay a filing fee. The agency may require payment or bond prior to the transmittal of the record. The official record shall be considered by the court without being offered and received in evidence.
(5)(a) The review shall be conducted by the court without a jury de novo on the record of the agency. The court may affirm, reverse, or modify the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings.
(b)(i) If the court determines that the interest of justice would be served by the resolution of any other issue not raised before the agency, the court may remand the case to the agency for further proceedings.
(ii) The agency shall affirm, modify, or reverse its findings and decision in the case by reason of the additional proceedings and shall file the decision following remand with the reviewing court. The agency shall serve a copy of the decision following remand upon all parties to the district court proceedings. The agency decision following remand shall become final unless a petition for further review is filed with the reviewing court within thirty days after the decision following remand being filed with the district court. The party filing the petition for further review shall serve a copy of the petition for further review upon all parties to the district court proceeding in accordance with the rules of pleading in civil actions promulgated by the Supreme Court pursuant to section 25-801.01 within thirty days after the petition for further review is filed. Within thirty days after service of the petition for further review or within such further time as the court for good cause shown may allow, the agency shall prepare and transmit to the court a certified copy of the official record of the additional proceedings had before the agency following remand.
(6) The review provided by this section shall not be available in any case where other provisions of law prescribe the method of appeal.
Notes of Decisions
Haeffner v. State, Dept. of Pub. Inst, 371 N.W.2d 658 (Neb. 1985).
· cites it 32× “Haeffner appealed to the district court pursuant to § 84-917 for judicial review of the personnel board's decision.”
Prokop v. Lower Loup Nat. Res. Dist., 302 Neb. 10 (Neb. 2019).
· cites it 8× “LLNRD and the board acknowledge the statutory standard of review is de novo when a court is reviewing questions of fact or law.”
Slack Nursing Home, Inc. v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 528 N.W.2d 285 (Neb. 1995).
· cites it 22× “Slack Nursing Home timely filed for a review of the agency decision in the district court pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-917 (Reissue 1994). The district court stated its review of the agency determination under § 84-917 was to be conducted de novo on the record of the…”
Omaha Expo. & Racing v. Nebraska State Racing Comm., 307 Neb. 172 (Neb. 2020).
· cites it 25× “Determining whether an agency acted beyond its role as a neutral fact finder to qualify as one of the “parties of record” under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-917 (Reissue 2014) requires looking at the nature of the administrative proceeding under review.”
Meier v. State, Dept. of Soc. Servs., 417 N.W.2d 771 (Neb. 1988).
· cites it 22× “Our first task is to settle upon the scope of our review, a matter which is controlled by the nature of the proceeding filed in the district court.”
Med. Creek v. Middle Repub. NRD, 892 N.W.2d 74 (Neb. 2017).
· cites it 5× “In a review de novo on the record, the district court is not limited to a review subject to the nar- row criteria found in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-917 (6)(a) (Reissue 2014), but is required to make independent factual determinations based upon the record, and the court reaches its…”
Abay, L. L.C. v. Neb. Liquor Control Comm'n, 927 N.W.2d 780 (Neb. 2019).
· cites it 6× “See § 53-1,116 (appeal from Commission order in accordance with Administrative Procedure Act); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-917 (Reissue 2014) (judicial review under Administrative Procedure Act).”
Webb v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 301 Neb. 810 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 4× “Webb alleged that the court had jurisdiction over his APA claim pursuant to § 84-917. In addition, Webb asserted a claim for deprivation of federal rights under § 1983.”
Glass v. Neb. Dept. of Motor Vehs., 536 N.W.2d 344 (Neb. 1995).
· cites it 15× “At that time, § 84-917(2) (Reissue 1966) provided: "Proceedings for review shall be instituted by filing a petition in the district court of the county where the action is taken within thirty days after the service of the final decision by the agency.”
Monahan v. State of Neb., 491 F. Supp. 1074 (D. Neb. 1980).
· cites it 12× “See Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 84-917 to 919. In essence, a party suing under the provision is only entitled to a limited judicial review of the administrative record.”
Dept. of Health & Human Serv. v. Weekley, 741 N.W.2d 658 (Neb. 2007).
· cites it 10× “In her answer, Weekley asserted that the Dodge County District Court did not have jurisdiction because DHHS' petition for further review was not filed "in the district court of the county where the action is taken," as required by § 84-917. The district court rejected Weekley's…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-917(1) — 23 cases
Webb v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 301 Neb. 810 (Neb. 2018).
“Webb alleged that the court had jurisdiction over his APA claim pursuant to § 84-917. In addition, Webb asserted a claim for deprivation of federal rights under § 1983.”
Meier v. State, Dept. of Soc. Servs., 417 N.W.2d 771 (Neb. 1988).
“Our first task is to settle upon the scope of our review, a matter which is controlled by the nature of the proceeding filed in the district court.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-917(2) — 22 cases
Omaha Expo. & Racing v. Nebraska State Racing Comm., 307 Neb. 172 (Neb. 2020).
“Determining whether an agency acted beyond its role as a neutral fact finder to qualify as one of the “parties of record” under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-917 (Reissue 2014) requires looking at the nature of the administrative proceeding under review.”
Monahan v. State of Neb., 491 F. Supp. 1074 (D. Neb. 1980).
“See Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 84-917 to 919. In essence, a party suing under the provision is only entitled to a limited judicial review of the administrative record.”
Glass v. Neb. Dept. of Motor Vehs., 536 N.W.2d 344 (Neb. 1995).
“At that time, § 84-917(2) (Reissue 1966) provided: "Proceedings for review shall be instituted by filing a petition in the district court of the county where the action is taken within thirty days after the service of the final decision by the agency.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-917(2)(a) — 27 cases
Dept. of Health & Human Serv. v. Weekley, 741 N.W.2d 658 (Neb. 2007).
“In her answer, Weekley asserted that the Dodge County District Court did not have jurisdiction because DHHS' petition for further review was not filed "in the district court of the county where the action is taken," as required by § 84-917. The district court rejected Weekley's…”
Glass v. Neb. Dept. of Motor Vehs., 536 N.W.2d 344 (Neb. 1995).
“At that time, § 84-917(2) (Reissue 1966) provided: "Proceedings for review shall be instituted by filing a petition in the district court of the county where the action is taken within thirty days after the service of the final decision by the agency.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-917(2)(a)(i) — 15 cases
Omaha Expo. & Racing v. Nebraska State Racing Comm., 307 Neb. 172 (Neb. 2020).
“Determining whether an agency acted beyond its role as a neutral fact finder to qualify as one of the “parties of record” under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-917 (Reissue 2014) requires looking at the nature of the administrative proceeding under review.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-917(2)(b) — 2 cases
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-917(2)(b)(iii) — 1 case
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-917(2)(b)(vi) — 3 cases
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-917(3) — 4 cases
Glass v. Neb. Dept. of Motor Vehs., 536 N.W.2d 344 (Neb. 1995).
“At that time, § 84-917(2) (Reissue 1966) provided: "Proceedings for review shall be instituted by filing a petition in the district court of the county where the action is taken within thirty days after the service of the final decision by the agency.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-917(4) — 10 cases
Meier v. State, Dept. of Soc. Servs., 417 N.W.2d 771 (Neb. 1988).
“Our first task is to settle upon the scope of our review, a matter which is controlled by the nature of the proceeding filed in the district court.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-917(5) — 19 cases
Monahan v. State of Neb., 491 F. Supp. 1074 (D. Neb. 1980).
“See Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 84-917 to 919. In essence, a party suing under the provision is only entitled to a limited judicial review of the administrative record.”
Slack Nursing Home, Inc. v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 528 N.W.2d 285 (Neb. 1995).
“Slack Nursing Home timely filed for a review of the agency decision in the district court pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-917 (Reissue 1994). The district court stated its review of the agency determination under § 84-917 was to be conducted de novo on the record of the…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-917(5)(a) — 50 cases
Prokop v. Lower Loup Nat. Res. Dist., 302 Neb. 10 (Neb. 2019).
“LLNRD and the board acknowledge the statutory standard of review is de novo when a court is reviewing questions of fact or law.”
Webb v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 301 Neb. 810 (Neb. 2018).
“Webb alleged that the court had jurisdiction over his APA claim pursuant to § 84-917. In addition, Webb asserted a claim for deprivation of federal rights under § 1983.”
Abay, L. L.C. v. Neb. Liquor Control Comm'n, 927 N.W.2d 780 (Neb. 2019).
“See § 53-1,116 (appeal from Commission order in accordance with Administrative Procedure Act); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-917 (Reissue 2014) (judicial review under Administrative Procedure Act).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-917(5)(b) — 5 cases
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-917(5)(b)(i) — 4 cases
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-917(5)(b)(ii) — 3 cases
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-917(6) — 19 cases
Meier v. State, Dept. of Soc. Servs., 417 N.W.2d 771 (Neb. 1988).
“Our first task is to settle upon the scope of our review, a matter which is controlled by the nature of the proceeding filed in the district court.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-917(6)(a) — 9 cases
Med. Creek v. Middle Repub. NRD, 892 N.W.2d 74 (Neb. 2017).
“In a review de novo on the record, the district court is not limited to a review subject to the nar- row criteria found in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-917 (6)(a) (Reissue 2014), but is required to make independent factual determinations based upon the record, and the court reaches its…”
Monahan v. State of Neb., 491 F. Supp. 1074 (D. Neb. 1980).
“See Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 84-917 to 919. In essence, a party suing under the provision is only entitled to a limited judicial review of the administrative record.”
Slack Nursing Home, Inc. v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 528 N.W.2d 285 (Neb. 1995).
“Slack Nursing Home timely filed for a review of the agency decision in the district court pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-917 (Reissue 1994). The district court stated its review of the agency determination under § 84-917 was to be conducted de novo on the record of the…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-917(6)(b) — 12 cases
Abay, L. L.C. v. Neb. Liquor Control Comm'n, 927 N.W.2d 780 (Neb. 2019).
“See § 53-1,116 (appeal from Commission order in accordance with Administrative Procedure Act); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-917 (Reissue 2014) (judicial review under Administrative Procedure Act).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-917(6)(c) — 1 case
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-917(6)(e) — 7 cases
Monahan v. State of Neb., 491 F. Supp. 1074 (D. Neb. 1980).
“See Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 84-917 to 919. In essence, a party suing under the provision is only entitled to a limited judicial review of the administrative record.”
Slack Nursing Home, Inc. v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 528 N.W.2d 285 (Neb. 1995).
“Slack Nursing Home timely filed for a review of the agency decision in the district court pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-917 (Reissue 1994). The district court stated its review of the agency determination under § 84-917 was to be conducted de novo on the record of the…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-917(7) — 6 cases
Glass v. Neb. Dept. of Motor Vehs., 536 N.W.2d 344 (Neb. 1995).
“At that time, § 84-917(2) (Reissue 1966) provided: "Proceedings for review shall be instituted by filing a petition in the district court of the county where the action is taken within thirty days after the service of the final decision by the agency.”
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.