Kozal v. Nebraska Liquor Control Comm.
902 N.W.2d 147
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Four Nebraska beer retailers in Whiteclay submitted renewal applications; the Nebraska Liquor Control Commission required "long form" applications and held a hearing after citizen protests.
- Thirteen Sheridan County citizens filed written objections (later 12), triggering a contested hearing; the Commission denied renewal and issued findings in April 2017.
- The retailers petitioned for judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in Lancaster County District Court but did not join the citizen objectors as parties of record to the petition.
- The district court held a hearing (citizen objectors received no notice), vacated the Commission’s order, and directed renewal via the short-form process; the Commission appealed the same day.
- Citizen objectors later appealed the district court’s order, arguing they were parties of record in the Commission proceeding and had not been made parties to the APA review; the Supreme Court’s decision turned exclusively on jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court acquired subject-matter jurisdiction under the APA when petitioners failed to join all parties of record | Retailers argued APA review was proper without joining citizen objectors; statutory definition of "party of record" limited in scope | Commission and objectors argued APA requires all parties of record from agency proceeding be made parties to district-court review, and retailers failed to join them | Held: District court lacked jurisdiction because retailers did not join citizen objectors who were parties of record; judgment vacated and appeal dismissed |
| Whether citizen objectors qualified as "parties of record" under Nebraska Liquor Control Act § 53-1,115 | Retailers contended the subsection defining parties of record was limited and did not control APA review | Commission/objectors relied on § 53-1,115(4) which expressly lists citizen objectors as parties of record in license-application proceedings | Held: § 53-1,115(4) governs; citizen objectors are parties of record for Commission licensing proceedings and must be joined in APA review |
| Whether the statutory definition in § 53-1,115 applies to APA review procedure | Retailers claimed the definition was confined to that section and not controlling for APA review | Commission/objectors pointed to legislative history, textual context, and the contemporaneous enactment of APA review to show the definition was intended to apply | Held: Definition applies; legislative history and statutory context support using § 53-1,115 to identify parties of record for APA review |
| Whether citizen objectors actually acted/treated as parties in the agency hearing | Retailers implied objectors were peripheral | Objectors showed counsel appeared, submitted witness/exhibit lists, examined and cross-examined witnesses, and were treated as parties by hearing officer and Commission | Held: Objectors participated and were treated as parties of record in the hearing, reinforcing the need to join them in district-court review |
Key Cases Cited
- Pump & Pantry, Inc. v. City of Grand Island, 233 Neb. 191, 444 N.W.2d 312 (Neb. 1989) (precedent on liquor licensing procedures referenced by district court)
- Grand Island Latin Club v. Nebraska Liq. Cont. Comm., 251 Neb. 61, 554 N.W.2d 778 (Neb. 1996) (prior guidance on liquor control and review)
- Shaffer v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 289 Neb. 740, 857 N.W.2d 313 (Neb. 2014) (discussing when a nonagency participant is a party of record for APA review)
- Glass v. Nebraska Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 248 Neb. 501, 536 N.W.2d 344 (Neb. 1995) (treatment of APA review as distinct from traditional appellate review)
- DeNourie & Yost Homes v. Frost, 295 Neb. 912, 893 N.W.2d 669 (Neb. 2017) (describing de novo district-court review on the agency record)