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 (“hella fire… be there (School)”), which prompted another anonymous post referencing a gun; police notified the school.
- The post led to heightened security, police searches, over 100 parent calls, and several students checked out; the school investigated and interviewed students.
- J.S. admitted making the “hella fire” post (not the gun post) and was suspended from school for 15 days; superintendent and school board upheld the suspension after administrative hearings.
- J.S. timely filed a petition for district court review under the Student Discipline Act, but the record shows she did not serve the school board with a summons and copy of the petition; the board filed a voluntary appearance and stated it waived service of summons.
- The Hall County District Court affirmed the suspension on the merits, but the Nebraska Supreme Court sua sponte questioned whether the district court had acquired subject matter jurisdiction under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 79-289.
- The Supreme Court concluded that because J.S. failed to serve the summons and petition on the board as required, the district court (and thus the Supreme Court) lacked subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court acquired subject matter jurisdiction under § 79-289 by filing the petition without serving the board | J.S.: § 25-516.01 voluntary appearance by the board equates to service and satisfies § 79-289 | GIPS: Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by voluntary appearance; service on the board was required | Held: No subject matter jurisdiction; statutory service requirement not satisfied and jurisdictional rules are mandatory |
| Whether a voluntary appearance under § 25-516.01 can substitute for statutory service for purposes of subject matter jurisdiction | J.S.: Voluntary appearance equals service and thus satisfies statutory prerequisites | GIPS: Voluntary appearance affects personal jurisdiction only; cannot create subject matter jurisdiction | Held: Voluntary appearance equivalent to service only for personal jurisdiction; cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction |
| Whether the district court could exercise jurisdiction despite procedural defect because the board waived summons | J.S.: Board waived summons in its voluntary appearance, so defect cured | GIPS: Parties cannot waive or confer subject matter jurisdiction | Held: Waiver/consent cannot create subject matter jurisdiction; requirement is jurisdictional and mandatory |
| Whether the suspension was authorized (merits) | J.S.: Her post was sarcastic and nonthreatening; suspension improper | GIPS: Post could be interpreted as violent and caused substantial disruption justifying suspension | Held: Merits not reached by the Supreme Court (decision dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); lower court had affirmed on merits but that decision is void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Medicine Creek v. Middle Republican NRD, 296 Neb. 1 (discussing appellate duty to determine jurisdiction)
- Concordia Teachers College v. Neb. Dept. of Labor, 252 Neb. 504 (statutory requirement to serve summons within prescribed time is prerequisite to district court jurisdiction under APA)
- Clarke v. First Nat. Bank of Omaha, 296 Neb. 632 (parties cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction by consent)
- Heckman v. Marchio, 296 Neb. 458 (the right of appeal is statutory and procedural prerequisites are mandatory)