Dodge Cty. Humane Soc. v. City of Fremont, 992 N.W.2d 747

In 2016 (modified 2017) Fremont contracted with Dodge County Humane Society for animal control services.
On Feb. 23, 2021, the Fremont City Council voted to authorize the mayor to send a drafted letter terminating the contract effective 30 days, after public comment and reference to an earlier Oct. 13, 2020 letter regarding alleged contract violations.
The Humane Society filed a petition in error in Dodge County District Court arguing the City lacked cause and failed to follow contractual prerequisites for termination; the district court issued temporary relief and later reinstated the contract, finding the Council lacked reasonable sufficient evidence to terminate.
The City and Council moved to dismiss for lack of petition-in-error jurisdiction under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1901, arguing the Council did not act in a judicial/quasi-judicial capacity; those motions were denied and the case proceeded to a final hearing.
The Nebraska Supreme Court held the Council’s vote merely authorized sending a termination letter and did not involve adjudicative facts or a required judicial procedure, so § 25-1901 petition-in-error jurisdiction did not apply; it vacated the district court’s order and dismissed the appeal without reaching the contract merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court had petition-in-error jurisdiction under § 25-1901 to review the City Council decision	Humane Society: Council action was a final decision affecting rights and reviewable via petition in error	City/Council: Council did not exercise judicial functions; petition in error is not available for ordinary contract disputes	Held: No jurisdiction — Council did not exercise judicial/quasi-judicial functions; petition in error unavailable; district court lacked jurisdiction; order vacated and appeal dismissed
Whether the district court properly considered evidence outside the City Council record	Humane Society: district court could consider evidence to determine sufficiency of basis for termination	City/Council: district court improperly considered extra-record evidence beyond a nonjudicial council action	Held: Not reached — appellate decision disposes on jurisdictional grounds, so evidentiary issue not decided
Whether the City’s termination decision was supported by sufficient evidence	Humane Society: termination was unsupported and contract reinstatement was proper	City/Council: termination authorized and supported; merits belong in a breach‑of‑contract action, not petition in error	Held: Not reached — merits were not addressed because of lack of petition-in-error jurisdiction

Main St Properties v. City of Bellevue, 310 Neb. 669, 968 N.W.2d 625 (2022) (explains petition-in-error jurisdiction and judicial-function requirement)
County of Lancaster v. County of Custer, 313 Neb. 622, 985 N.W.2d 612 (2023) (appellate courts must determine jurisdiction before addressing merits)
Hawkins v. City of Omaha, 261 Neb. 943, 627 N.W.2d 118 (2001) (board acts judicially when deciding adjudicative facts or required by statute)
McNally v. City of Omaha, 273 Neb. 558, 731 N.W.2d 573 (2007) (whether hearing/evidence were required bears on quasi-judicial character)
Camp Clarke Ranch v. Morrill Cty. Bd. of Comrs., 17 Neb. App. 76, 758 N.W.2d 653 (2008) (public-body fact‑finding or inquiry does not necessarily make action judicial)
Sarpy Cty. Bd. of Comrs. v. Sarpy Cty. Land Reutil., 9 Neb. App. 552, 615 N.W.2d 490 (2000) (distinguishes discretionary administrative acts from judicial acts)