Kozal v. Nebraska Liquor Control Comm.
297 Neb. 938
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Four Nebraska retailers in Whiteclay sought renewal of Class B (packaged beer) liquor licenses; the Nebraska Liquor Control Commission required "long form" renewal and held a hearing after citizen protests.
- Twelve Sheridan County residents filed written objections triggering a contested hearing; after a hearing the Commission denied the retailers' renewal applications and issued a final order.
- The retailers filed an APA petition for district-court review in Lancaster County but did not join the citizen objectors who had participated before the Commission.
- The district court heard the matter (with notice only to the Commission), vacated the Commission’s order, and ordered short-form renewals; the Commission appealed the district court’s order.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court held the citizen objectors were "parties of record" under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 53-1,115 and that failure to join them deprived the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction; it vacated the district-court judgment and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court acquired jurisdiction under the APA when retailers failed to join citizen objectors | Retailers: joinder of objectors not required; APA requirement does not bar review here | Commission/Objectors: APA requires all parties of record to be joined; omission deprives district court of jurisdiction | Held: omission of citizen objectors deprived district court of subject-matter jurisdiction; review improper |
| Scope of the term "party of record" in § 53-1,115 — whether its definition applies to APA review | Retailers: the statute's phrase "for purposes of this section" limits the definition to that section only | Commission/Objectors: the legislative scheme and history show § 53-1,115 defines parties for APA review of Commission proceedings | Held: § 53-1,115 defines parties of record for Commission license proceedings and controls for APA review |
| Whether citizen objectors in this case functioned as "parties of record" | Retailers: objectors were mere commenters/objections, not required parties | Commission/Objectors: objectors formally appeared, participated, called and cross-examined witnesses, were treated as parties | Held: objectors acted as and were treated as parties of record and thus must be joined |
| Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to decide the appeal from the district court order | Retailers: (implicit) appellate review of district-court merits is appropriate | Commission/Objectors: because district court lacked jurisdiction, its order is void and appellate jurisdiction is lacking | Held: because the district court never acquired subject-matter jurisdiction, the appeal must be dismissed and the district-court order vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Pump & Pantry, Inc. v. City of Grand Island, 233 Neb. 191 (1989) (framework on liquor license contest and procedural review)
- Grand Island Latin Club v. Nebraska Liq. Cont. Comm., 251 Neb. 61 (1996) (administrative review principles in liquor-control context)
- Shaffer v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 289 Neb. 740 (2014) (treating a participating nonagency actor as a party of record for APA review)
- Glass v. Nebraska Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 248 Neb. 501 (1995) (discussion of APA review as a distinct district-court proceeding rather than a true "appeal")