J.S. v. Grand Island Public Schools
297 Neb. 347
Neb.2017Background
- A Barr Middle School student, J.S., posted anonymously on social media from home: “Tomorrow gonna be hella fire… be there (School),” which prompted another anonymous post saying “Don’t show up to school tomorrow [gun emoji].”
- The police informed the school; the next day extra security was deployed, the school was searched, and parents made over 100 calls; some students were checked out.
- J.S. admitted making the “hella fire” post (not the gun post). The principal suspended her for 15 days and she requested an administrative hearing; the superintendent and the school board upheld the suspension.
- J.S. filed a timely petition in Hall County District Court to appeal the board’s decision, but the record shows the board was not served a summons and copy of the petition; the board filed a voluntary appearance and waived summons under § 25-516.01.
- The district court affirmed the suspension on the merits, finding J.S.’ post could be read as violent and caused a substantial disruption; on appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court sua sponte questioned whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under § 79-289.
- The Supreme Court concluded J.S. failed to effectuate the two mandatory steps (§ 79-289) — filing the petition and serving summons with a copy of the petition on the board — so the district court (and 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 despite no formal service of summons on the board | J.S.: voluntary appearance by GIPS under § 25-516.01 equates to service; board’s waiver satisfies § 79-289 | GIPS: parties cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction by voluntary appearance or waiver; statute requires actual service as a prerequisite | Held: No. Service of summons and copy of petition on the board is a mandatory statutory prerequisite; failure to serve deprived the district court of subject matter jurisdiction, so the proceedings were void |
| Whether voluntary appearance equates to service for subject matter jurisdiction | J.S.: § 25-516.01 makes voluntary appearance equivalent to service | GIPS: § 25-516.01 addresses personal jurisdiction/service, not subject matter jurisdiction | Held: Voluntary appearance equates to service for personal jurisdiction only; it cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction |
| Whether the district court’s merits decision could cure jurisdictional defect | J.S.: merits review was timely and defendant’s waiver should allow adjudication | GIPS: lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be cured by waiver or merits rulings | Held: A court action without subject matter jurisdiction is void; merits decision does not cure jurisdictional defect |
| Whether the Supreme Court can review the merits despite jurisdictional defect | J.S.: appellate review should proceed because petition was filed timely and board acknowledged receipt | GIPS: appellate court lacks jurisdiction if district court had none | Held: Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction if the district court never acquired subject matter jurisdiction; appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Concordia Teachers College v. Nebraska Dept. of Labor, 252 Neb. 504 (1997) (interpreting filing and service deadlines under review statutes; summons must be served within statutory period to vest jurisdiction)
- Medicine Creek v. Middle Republican NRD, 296 Neb. 1 (2017) (appellate courts must determine jurisdiction as a matter of law)
- Clarke v. First Nat. Bank of Omaha, 296 Neb. 632 (2017) (parties cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction by consent or waiver)
- Burns v. Burns, 293 Neb. 633 (2016) (distinguishing personal jurisdiction from subject matter jurisdiction principles)
- Abdouch v. Lopez, 285 Neb. 718 (2013) (defining personal jurisdiction and service concepts)