Kozal v. Nebraska Liquor Control Comm.
297 Neb. 938
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Four Nebraska beer retailers in Whiteclay applied to renew Class B (packaged-beer) liquor licenses; the Nebraska Liquor Control Commission required "long form" renewal applications and held a contested hearing after citizen protests.
- Thirteen Sheridan County residents filed written objections (later 12) triggering a statutory hearing; the Commission held a hearing, denied the renewals, and issued a written order.
- The retailers sought judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in Lancaster County District Court within 30 days of the Commission’s order, but did not name the citizen objectors as parties of the review.
- The district court heard the retailers’ motion, ruled on the merits, vacated the Commission’s denial, and remanded to allow short-form renewals. The Commission appealed.
- Citizen objectors later filed a notice of appeal asserting they were "parties of record" in the administrative proceeding and had not been made parties in the APA review, raising a jurisdictional defect. The Nebraska Supreme Court addressed only jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court acquired subject-matter jurisdiction under the APA when all "parties of record" were not made parties to the review | Retailers: compliance with APA was sufficient; citizen objectors need not be parties to the district-court review | Commission & citizen objectors: APA requires all parties of record from agency proceeding to be made parties in district-court review; omission deprives district court of jurisdiction | Held: District court lacked jurisdiction because retailers failed to include citizen objectors, who were parties of record |
| Whether citizen objectors qualify as "parties of record" under the Nebraska Liquor Control Act for APA review | Retailers: statutory "party of record" definition in §53-1,115(4) is limited to that section and not controlling for APA review | Commission & objectors: §53-1,115 expressly lists citizen objectors as parties of record in license application proceedings and controls for APA review of Commission orders | Held: §53-1,115(4) defines parties of record for Commission license proceedings (including citizen objectors) and applies to APA review |
| Whether the statutory definition applies where the proceeding involved license renewal (versus suspension/revocation) | Retailers: renewal denial is effectively a revocation/cancellation and §53-1,115(4)(c) (suspension/cancellation) should control | Objectors: renewal applications are applications for entitlement and §53-1,115(4)(a) (applications for retail license) governs | Held: Renewal denials are applications; subsection (4)(a) applies and includes citizen objectors |
| Whether the citizen objectors functionally acted as parties at the administrative hearing | Retailers: argued limited role for some objectors; contested relevance | Objectors & Commission: objectors participated actively (appearance, witness lists, cross-examination, stipulations) and were treated as parties in the hearing record | Held: Objectors acted and were treated as parties of record in the Commission hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Pump & Pantry, Inc. v. City of Grand Island, 233 Neb. 191 (Neb. 1989) (precedent on liquor licensing and administrative review)
- Grand Island Latin Club v. Nebraska Liquor Control Comm., 251 Neb. 61 (Neb. 1996) (administrative procedure and liquor control principles)
- Shaffer v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 289 Neb. 740 (Neb. 2014) (when a party is a "party of record" for APA review based on participation and treatment at hearing)
- Glass v. Nebraska Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 248 Neb. 501 (Neb. 1995) (definition and treatment of parties in administrative contexts)
- DeNourie & Yost Homes v. Frost, 295 Neb. 912 (Neb. 2017) (describing scope and nature of APA review in district court)