A & P II v. Lancaster Cty. Bd. of Equal., 3 N.W.3d 907

Lancaster County Board of Equalization petitioned the Nebraska Tax Equalization and Review Commission (Commission) for permission to use an alternate, professionally accepted mass appraisal method to value certain rent-restricted housing projects, diverging from the income approach mandated by statute (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1333).
The statutory income approach typically uses the actual income and expense data of property owners, but the Board argued this method undervalued some properties.
The Commission held an evidentiary hearing and granted the Board’s petitions, allowing deviation from the statutory method, but did not approve a specific new methodology or property values.
Developers (property owners) appealed the Commission’s order, challenging the lack of specific methodology, application to certain properties, and the procedural handling of the case.
The Nebraska Supreme Court raised the threshold question of whether the Commission’s order was a final appealable decision, as required for appellate review.
The Court found that no substantial right had been affected, as the Commission’s order did not finalize property valuations or approve a concrete method, and thus dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the Commission's order a final, appealable order?	Developers argued the order affected their statutory right to a particular valuation method and was immediately appealable.	The Board, and the Court on its own, argued the order was provisional and had not yet affected any substantial right.	Not a final, appealable order; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Does the Commission need to approve a specific alternate methodology?	Developers argued that failure to specify a methodology was error and left their interests unprotected.	The Board argued that only permission to deviate was needed at this stage, not details.	Commission's broad permission did not amount to a final determination.
Was it error to permit deviation for all 21 properties, rather than just the 8 identified in evidence?	Developers claimed the order was overbroad.	The Board represented that evidence had warranted deviation at least as to those 8.	Procedural posture rendered this issue non-final and not ripe for appeal.
Did the Commission err in granting relief beyond what was requested?	Developers argued the relief went beyond statutory authorization.	The Board argued its petitions sought general permission to vary.	Not resolved; jurisdiction lacking on provisional orders.

Schreiber Bros. Hog Co. v. Schreiber, 312 Neb. 707 (2022) (appellate courts must determine jurisdiction as a threshold matter)
Smith v. Lincoln Meadows Homeowners Assn., 267 Neb. 849 (2004) (right to appeal is statutory)
Van Fossen v. Board of Governors, 228 Neb. 579 (1988) (final orders must affect a substantial right)
Noland v. Yost, 315 Neb. 568 (2023) (definition of substantial right for appeal purposes)