Gay v. Board of Engineers & Architects, 321 Neb. 712

Gay’s license renewal audit revealed discrepancies between the continuing-education hours he claimed and the Board’s attendance records, and the Board later discovered he had submitted false “wet signed” completion certificates. 1
The Board charged Gay with giving false or forged evidence to maintain his licenses and with violating the Engineers and Architects Regulation Act and Board rules. 2
After a hearing, the Board revoked Gay’s architecture and engineering licenses and barred him from reapplying for five years. 3
Gay petitioned for judicial review and later filed a statement of errors raising excessiveness, due process, reapplication, and reform issues. 4
The district court held the due process claim was not preserved, but it still addressed the merits and affirmed the Board’s discipline. 5
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, concluding there was no plain error on due process and no reversible error in the discipline imposed. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Gay preserve issues by filing a statement of errors? 7	Gay said the statement of errors satisfied review requirements.	Board argued the petition for review had to state the issues.	Statement of errors did not replace the petition’s preservation requirement. 8
Did the Board violate due process by not advising Gay of rights and penalties? 9	Gay claimed he was not informed of counsel, hearing, and defense rights.	Board argued notice and hearing opportunities satisfied due process.	No due process violation; Gay received constitutionally adequate notice and hearing. 10
Was the disciplinary sanction excessive? 11	Gay argued revocation and five-year reapplication bar were too severe.	Board argued the sanction was authorized and supported by his admitted dishonesty.	The sanction was lawful, supported by evidence, and not arbitrary. 12
Did the court err by not considering evidence of reform? 13	Gay said reform evidence should have mitigated discipline.	Board argued no reform evidence was in the record.	No error; the record contained no reform evidence to consider. 14

Hauxwell v. Middle Republican NRD, 321 Neb. 1 (Neb. 2025) (APA review for errors appearing on the record; decision must conform to law, be supported by competent evidence, and not be arbitrary 15)
In re Claim of Roberts for Attorney Fees, 307 Neb. 346 (Neb. 2020) (Nebraska Supreme Court rules are construed like statutes 16)
American Exch. Bank v. Topp, 321 Neb. 409 (Neb. 2026) (questions of law are reviewed independently 17)
Skaggs v. Nebraska State Patrol, 282 Neb. 154 (Neb. 2011) (issues not raised in the petition for judicial review are not preserved 18)
Kozal v. Nebraska Liquor Control Comm., 297 Neb. 938 (Neb. 2017) (APA proceeding in district court for review is not an appeal 19)
Hotz v. Hotz, 301 Neb. 102 (Neb. 2018) (Supreme Court rule provisions must be read in context and harmonized 20)
Swicord v. Police Stds. Adv. Council, 309 Neb. 43 (Neb. 2021) (plain error standard 21)
Prokop v. Lower Loup NRD, 302 Neb. 10 (Neb. 2019) (due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard, not a particular procedure 22)
E.M. v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 306 Neb. 1 (Neb. 2020) (plain-error review may follow when the lower court nevertheless addressed an unpreserved issue 23)
Cain v. Custer Cty. Bd. of Equal., 291 Neb. 730 (Neb. 2015) (issues may be treated together when the review ground encompasses them 24)