Hauxwell v. Middle Republican NRD, 21 N.W.3d 34

Bryan and Ami Hauxwell, farmers in the Middle Republican Natural Resources District (NRD) in Nebraska, were found by the NRD to have violated rules relating to groundwater irrigation.
In 2020, the NRD's general manager and counsel (who were responsible for prosecuting the violations) participated in the NRD board's closed deliberations about penalties.
The district court ruled this participation violated due process, and remanded for new hearings following due process.
The NRD held new hearings in 2021 and 2022 on essentially the same alleged violations, with new procedures that excluded prosecutorial figures from board deliberations.
The district court later found that the initial due process violation "tainted" these later proceedings and vacated penalties again.
On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court considered whether the later NRD proceedings were fairly conducted and whether prior due process violations required ongoing disqualification or invalidation of subsequent actions.

Issue	Hauxwells' Argument	NRD's Argument	Held
Did prosecutor participation in 2020 board deliberations taint later hearings?	Yes; earlier bias and participation compromised later board neutrality.	No; new hearings were held with proper procedures.	Participation in 2020 did not permanently taint later hearings; new, separate hearings cured the error.
Was there continuing due process violation in the 2021/2022 hearings?	Yes; the same board members and prior emails show lingering bias/prejudgment.	No; new deliberations were clean, no evidence of actual bias in subsequent proceedings.	No proof of ongoing bias; presumption of board integrity stands.
Was the NRD required to file all findings with the court after remand?	Yes; failure to do so deprived district court (and appellate court) of jurisdiction.	No; only findings from remands addressing new issues require filing.	The NRD was not required to file all findings under these circumstances.
Are the board's 2021 findings final/appealable?	No; penalties not yet imposed, so no final order or actual aggrievement.	Yes; findings determined the action and should be considered final.	Not final—no penalties imposed—thus, not yet appealable.

Trade Comm’n v. Cement Institute, 333 U.S. 683 (mere prior exposure or opinion by a tribunal does not amount to unconstitutional bias).
Pangburn v. C.A.B., 311 F.2d 349 (prior involvement with related facts or reports does not itself disqualify a tribunal on due process grounds).
United States v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409 (presumption of integrity in adjudicators).
State v. Jones, 317 Neb. 559 (appellate court may affirm on alternative correct grounds, but discretion left to the lower court on remand to address unresolved claims).