J.S. v. Grand Island Public Schools
297 Neb. 347
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Middle-school student J.S. posted an anonymous social-media message from home (“Tomorrow gonna be hella fire … be there (School)”) that prompted concern and a second anonymous post referencing a gun; school and police were notified.
- On the morning after the posts, the school increased security, received over 100 parent calls, and 17 students were checked out; administrators interviewed students to identify the poster.
- J.S. admitted making the “hella fire” post but denied the gun post; the principal suspended her from school for 15 days and sent her home.
- J.S. administratively appealed; the superintendent and the school board each upheld the suspension after hearings.
- J.S. filed a timely petition in district court for judicial review but did not serve the board with a summons and copy of the petition; the board filed a voluntary appearance and waived service of summons.
- The district court affirmed the suspension on the merits; on appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court held the district court (and thus the Supreme Court) lacked subject matter jurisdiction because statutory service requirements were not met.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court acquired subject matter jurisdiction under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 79-289 by J.S. filing a petition but not serving the board with summons and petition | J.S.: voluntary appearance under § 25-516.01 made service equivalent and satisfied § 79-289; board’s waiver acknowledged receipt | GIPS: parties cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction by consent; statutory summons-and-service requirement was not met | Held: No subject matter jurisdiction. Filing alone was insufficient; plaintiff failed to serve summons and petition on the board as required, so district court’s action was void and appeal dismissed. |
| Whether voluntary appearance equates to service for subject matter jurisdiction | J.S.: voluntary appearance equals service under § 25-516.01 | GIPS: voluntary appearance only affects personal jurisdiction; cannot create subject matter jurisdiction | Held: Voluntary appearance is equivalent to service only for personal jurisdiction, not for conferring subject matter jurisdiction. |
| Whether the district court’s merits decision could stand despite service defect | J.S.: procedural defect cured or waived by board’s conduct | GIPS: statutory requirements are mandatory and jurisdictional; cannot be waived by parties | Held: Statutory requirements for appeal are mandatory; lack of service prevented jurisdiction and cannot be waived. |
| Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal after district court lacked jurisdiction | J.S.: appealed district court’s merits ruling | GIPS: appellate jurisdiction depends on district court having had subject matter jurisdiction | Held: The Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction because the district court never obtained subject matter jurisdiction; appeal dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Medicine Creek v. Middle Republican NRD, 296 Neb. 1 (discussing appellate duty to determine jurisdiction)
- Estermann v. Bose, 296 Neb. 228 (statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo)
- Concordia Teachers College v. Nebraska Dept. of Labor, 252 Neb. 504 (service/summons within statutory period is prerequisite to district court subject matter jurisdiction on APA review)
- Abdouch v. Lopez, 285 Neb. 718 (definition of subject matter jurisdiction)
- Clarke v. First Nat. Bank of Omaha, 296 Neb. 632 (parties cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction by consent)