J.S. v. Grand Island Public Schools
297 Neb. 347
Neb.2017Background
- On April 3–4, 2016, anonymous social-media posts by Barr Middle School students suggested "hella fire" and displayed a gun emoji; police notified the school and extra security/searches occurred the next day.
- The posts prompted over 100 parent calls, 17 students checked out, and a substantial school disruption.
- J.S. admitted she made the "hella fire" post from home (meant sarcastically), but did not make the gun-emoji post; the principal suspended her for 15 days.
- The superintendent and the school board upheld the suspension after administrative hearings; J.S. then filed a timely petition in district court to review under the Student Discipline Act.
- The Board filed a voluntary appearance acknowledging receipt of the petition and waived service of summons; the record does not show formal service of summons on the Board.
- The district court affirmed the suspension on the merits; on appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court questioned whether the district court acquired subject-matter jurisdiction under § 79-289 because summons and a copy of the petition must be served on the board.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court acquired subject-matter jurisdiction under § 79-289 when the board filed a voluntary appearance but was not formally served with summons and petition | J.S.: voluntary appearance under § 25-516.01 equates to service and satisfies § 79-289 | GIPS: parties cannot confer subject-matter jurisdiction by consent; voluntary appearance cannot substitute statutorily required service | Held: No. Filing the petition is not enough; summons and service of a copy of the petition on the board are mandatory prerequisites to confer subject-matter jurisdiction under § 79-289 |
| Whether voluntary appearance can satisfy the APA requirement for service in a Student Discipline Act appeal | J.S.: voluntary appearance waived summons and acknowledges receipt, meeting statutory requirement | GIPS: voluntary appearance only affects personal jurisdiction; it cannot create subject-matter jurisdiction | Held: Voluntary appearance is equivalent to service only for personal jurisdiction; it does not cure failure to perform the statutorily mandated service needed to invoke district court review |
| Whether the district court's decision is void if statutory service requirements are unmet | J.S.: (implicit) district court decision should stand despite procedural defect | GIPS: lack of service means district court lacked authority; any judgment is void | Held: The district court’s action is void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction when statutory service requirements are not met |
| Whether the Supreme Court can decide the appeal if district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction | J.S.: appellate review appropriate because petition was filed and board appeared | GIPS: appellate court lacks jurisdiction if district court never acquired it | Held: The Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction and thus dismissed the appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Medicine Creek v. Middle Republican NRD, 296 Neb. 1 (clarifies appellate duty to determine jurisdiction)
- Concordia Teachers College v. Nebraska Dept. of Labor, 252 Neb. 504 (statutory requirement that summons be served within time is prerequisite to invoke 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 (appeal rights are purely statutory and statutory requirements for appeal are mandatory)
- Essman v. Nebraska Law Enforcement Training Center, 252 Neb. 347 (filing and service are necessary to establish district court jurisdiction to review administrative decisions)