Kowalewski v. Madison Cty. Bd. of Comrs., 310 Neb. 812

Elkhorn Valley Sportsman Club applied for and the Madison County Board of Commissioners approved a conditional use permit for a trap-and-skeet range on September 15, 2020.
Ronald & Linda Kowalewski and Robert & Sally Schroeter (the Kowalewskis) filed a notice of appeal to the Madison County District Court on October 14, 2020 (30 days standard deadline was Oct. 15).
With the notice they deposited an $82 check (filing fee intended) and separately a $100 cash bond for costs with the county clerk; the actual required docket fee at that time was $83.
On October 16 (day 31) an additional $1 was paid to the district court clerk; the record shows no request to the county clerk to apply bond funds to the fee.
The Kowalewskis filed their petition on December 2; the Board and the Club moved to dismiss for failure to timely pay the docket fee. The district court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court reviewed whether the appeal was perfected under Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 23-114.01(5), 25-1937, and 25-2729 and whether prior cases (Olmer, Stigge) required a more flexible approach.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal was perfected despite underpaying the district-court docket fee by $1 and/or paying late	Kowalewskis: the county clerk already had a $100 bond and $82 check, so the full fee effectively was on deposit and should be applied to perfect the appeal	Board/Club: strict statutory requirements control; failure to deposit the docket fee within 30 days is jurisdictional and fatal	Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; strict compliance with docket-fee requirement is required
Whether Olmer / Stigge permit a nonliteral or flexible application of § 25-2729 to excuse fee defects	Kowalewskis: Olmer and Stigge show § 25-2729 should not be applied literally to appeals from county entities, so payment-formalities can be treated flexibly	Board/Club: Olmer/Stigge do not excuse strict payment of docket fees; those cases adapted filing location, not the jurisdictional fee requirement	Court distinguished Olmer/Stigge and held those precedents do not allow short or late payment to satisfy jurisdictional fee requirement
Whether the district court erred by considering the Club’s motion to dismiss	Kowalewskis: court should not have considered Club’s motion (assigned as error)	Board/Club: jurisdictional defect made consideration appropriate	Court’s dismissal stands; no reversible error in considering the motion given jurisdictional defect

Stigge v. Graves, 213 Neb. 847, 332 N.W.2d 49 (Neb. 1983) (discusses applying county-court appeal procedures by analogy)
In re Application of Olmer, 275 Neb. 852, 752 N.W.2d 124 (Neb. 2008) (applied § 25-2729 procedure by analogy to appeals from county boards; held notice may be filed with the tribunal)
Baker-Heser v. State, 309 Neb. 979, 963 N.W.2d 59 (Neb. 2021) (explains presumption of legislative acquiescence in judicial construction)