J.S. v. Grand Island Public Schools
297 Neb. 347
| Neb. | 2017Background
- A Barr Middle School student, J.S., posted on social media from home saying “Tomorrow gonna be hella fire … be there (School).” A separate post with a gun emoji was made by someone else.
- The posts prompted police notification, extra school security, >100 parent phone calls, and several students leaving school; the school investigated and interviewed students.
- J.S. admitted making the “hella fire” post; the principal suspended her for 15 days.
- The superintendent and the school board upheld the suspension after administrative hearings.
- J.S. filed a timely petition in Hall County District Court to review the board’s decision, but the record shows she did not serve the Board with summons and a copy of the petition; the Board filed a voluntary appearance and asserted waiver of service.
- The district court affirmed the suspension on the merits; on appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court raised sua sponte whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 79-289.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under § 79-289 to review the school board decision | J.S.: voluntary appearance by the board under § 25-516.01 equates to service, so § 79-289’s service requirement was satisfied | GIPS: parties cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction by consent or voluntary appearance; statutory service requirement was not met | Held: No subject matter jurisdiction—statutory service of summons and petition on the board is mandatory and was not accomplished |
| Whether voluntary appearance can substitute for statutory service in appeals governed by the Student Discipline Act and APA | J.S.: § 25-516.01 makes voluntary appearance equivalent to service | GIPS: § 25-516.01 governs personal jurisdiction/waiver of summons, not subject matter jurisdiction | Held: Voluntary appearance may affect personal jurisdiction but cannot create subject matter jurisdiction; service requirement under § 79-289 is jurisdictional |
| Whether the district court’s merit decision on the suspension is valid despite any service defect | J.S.: merits support suspension and procedural defect is harmless | GIPS: procedural requirements are jurisdictional and cannot be waived | Held: Court’s merits decision is void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction |
| Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal | J.S.: appeal is proper because district court acted on petition | GIPS: appeal should be dismissed because lower court lacked jurisdiction | Held: Nebraska Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Medicine Creek v. Middle Republican NRD, 296 Neb. 1 (2017) (appellate duty to determine jurisdiction)
- Estermann v. Bose, 296 Neb. 228 (2017) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Concordia Teachers College v. Neb. Dept. of Labor, 252 Neb. 504 (1997) (service of summons within statutory period is prerequisite to district court subject matter jurisdiction under APA review)
- Clarke v. First Nat. Bank of Omaha, 296 Neb. 632 (2017) (parties cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction by consent)
- J.P. v. Millard Public Schools, 285 Neb. 890 (2013) (Student Discipline Act appeals governed by APA)