Title: Cox Nebraska Telecom v. Qwest Corp.
Citation: 268 Neb. 676
Docket Number: 147
State: Nebraska
Issuer: Nebraska Supreme Court
Date: October 8, 2004

268 Neb. 676 COX NEBRASKA TELECOM, L.L.C., ET AL., APPELLEES, v. QWEST CORPORATION, APPELLANT. No. S-03-147. Supreme Court of Nebraska. Filed October 8, 2004. Charles W. Steese and Sandra L. Potter, of Steese &amp; Evans, P.C., and Jill Vinjamuri Gettman, of Kutak Rock, L.L.P., for appellant. Paul M. Schudel and James A. Overcash, of Woods &amp; Aitken, L.L.P., for appellees ALLTEL Nebraska, Inc., and ALLTEL Communications of Nebraska, Inc. Thomas J. Moorman and David Cosson, of Kraskin, Lesse &amp; Cosson, L.L.C., for appellee Illuminet, Inc. Deonne L. Bruning, P.C., L.L.O., for appellee Cox Nebraska Telecom, L.L.C. HENDRY, C.J., WRIGHT, CONNOLLY, GERRARD, STEPHAN, McCORMACK, and MILLER-LERMAN, JJ. PER CURIAM. This litigation began with formal complaints filed before the Nebraska Public Service Commission (PSC) by the appellees, Cox Nebraska Telecom, L.L.C. (Cox); Illuminet, Inc; and ALLTEL Nebraska, Inc., and ALLTEL Communications of Nebraska, Inc. (collectively ALLTEL). The appellees charged that Qwest Corporation (Qwest), the appellant, was acting unlawfully by charging Illuminet for signaling services it obtained from Qwest and provided to Cox and ALLTEL. In an order entered December 17, 2002, the PSC agreed with the appellees and granted them the relief they requested. A timely motion for reconsideration was filed and denied. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 75-137 (Cum. Supp. 2000). [1] On February 7, 2003, Qwest filed a notice of appeal purporting to appeal directly to the Nebraska Court of Appeals. We granted the appellees' motion to bypass the Court of Appeals. The appellees in this case have argued that Qwest failed to perfect its appeal because it did not proceed pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-901 et seq. (Reissue 1999 &amp; Supp. 2003), and that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Before reaching the legal issues presented for review, it is the duty of an appellate court to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the matter before it. Webb v. American Employers Group, ante p. 473, 684 N.W.2d 33 (2004). For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the appellees are correct and that Qwest's appeal must be dismissed. [2,3] A jurisdictional question which does not involve a factual dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter of law. In re Guardianship &amp; Conservatorship of Woltemath, ante p. 33, 680 N.W.2d 142 (2004). The meaning of a statute is also a question of law. Vega v. Iowa Beef Processors, 264 Neb. 282, 646 N.W.2d 643 (2002). Prior to any of the events or statutory changes relevant to this case, the method of bringing an appeal from the PSC was found in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 75-136 (Reissue 1996): Section 75-137 (Reissue 1996) provided a procedure for perfecting an appeal from the PSC to the Court of Appeals. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 75-136.01 (Reissue 1996) allowed a party to file a petition in the district court, but Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 75-156 to 75-158 (Reissue 1996) dealt with the imposition of civil penalties and are not relevant. Consequently, prior to 2000, appeals in cases such as the instant case were not perfected pursuant to the APA, but were brought directly to the Court of Appeals. See Nebraska Pub. Serv. Comm. v. Nebraska Pub. Power Dist., 256 Neb. 479, 590 N.W.2d 840 (1999). The landscape changed with the enactment of 2000 Neb. Laws, L.B. 1285, which became effective on April 7, 2000. Section 75-136 (Cum. Supp. 2002) provided, as amended: L.B. 1285 also created Neb. Rev. Stat. § 75-132.01(2) (Cum. Supp. 2000), which vested the PSC with exclusive jurisdiction over telecommunications appeals and provided that "[a]fter all administrative remedies before the commission have been ex-hausted, any interested party to an action may appeal in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act." (Emphasis supplied.) See, also, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-811 (Cum. Supp. 2000) (appeals from actions against telecommunications companies to follow procedures of § 75-132.01). Consequently, effective April 7, 2000, the statutes provided two distinct means of appealing from the PSC. Generally, appeals were taken from the PSC to the Court of Appeals, as before, pursuant to § 75-136. However, telecommunications appeals were subject to the APA, pursuant to § 75-132.01. The appellees contend that the instant case is such a telecommunications appeal, and Qwest does not contest that contention. In addition, 2002 Neb. Laws, L.B. 1105, amended and recodified several sections in the process of creating the Nebraska Telecommunications Regulation Act (NTRA), Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-101 et seq. (Cum. Supp. 2002). Section 86-158, an amendment and recodification of § 86-811, provided that operative January 1, 2003: In short, at the time Qwest filed its notice of appeal in this telecommunications case, it was required to proceed pursuant to the APA by the plain language of two separate statutory provisions: §§ 75-132.01 ("any interested party to an action may appeal in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act") and 86-158 ("[t]he appeal shall be in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act"). Because Qwest failed to proceed under the APA, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. See, § 84-919; Nebraska Pub. Serv. Comm. v. Nebraska Pub. Power Dist., 256 Neb. 479, 590 N.W.2d 840 (1999) (APA is exclusive means of judicial review of final decision of any agency in contested case). Qwest, however, argues that the word "may" in § 75-132.01 was permissive, and not directory. See, e.g., Spaghetti Ltd. Partnership v. Wolfe, 264 Neb. 365, 647 N.W.2d 615 (2002). Thus, according to Qwest, while it could have appealed under the APA, it could also choose to proceed under § 75-136. Qwest reads § 75-132.01 as having provided parties in telecommunications cases with a choice of appellate procedure, as did § 75-136 for other cases in more explicit terms. Qwest's purported rationale is that depending on the situation, parties might want to expedite appellate review, or might want to go to district court in order to obtain more immediate relief in the form of a stay or injunction. The appellees reply that while the word "may" is generally permissive, in § 75-132.01, it meant only that a party may or may not choose to appealbut if an appeal is filed, use of the APA is not discretionary. [4] Qwest's proposed interpretation is not persuasive, for a number of reasons. First, §§ 75-132.01 and 86-158, as the specific statutes governing telecommunications appeals, were controlling in those specific circumstances over the general provisions of § 75-136. To the extent that there is conflict between two statutes on the same subject, the specific statute controls over the general statute. Brown v. Harbor Fin. Mortgage Corp., 267 Neb. 218, 673 N.W.2d 35 (2004). [5,6] Second, in construing a statute, an appellate court should consider the statute's plain meaning in pari materia and from its language as a whole to determine the intent of the Legislature. Premium Farms v. County of Holt, 263 Neb. 415, 640 N.W.2d 633 (2002). All subordinate rules are mere aids in reaching this fundamental determination. Alegent Health Bergan Mercy Med. Ctr. v. Haworth, 260 Neb. 63, 615 N.W.2d 460 (2000). Qwest's argument regarding the purportedly "permissive" language of § 75-132.01 does not account for § 86-158, which stated that telecommunications appeals "shall be in accordance" with the APA and then specifically incorporated the appellate procedure set forth in § 75-132.01. In order to ascertain the proper meaning of a statute, reference may be had to later as well as earlier legislation upon the same subject. Unisys Corp. v. Nebraska Life &amp; Health Ins. Guar. Assn., 267 Neb. 158, 673 N.W.2d 15 (2004). Plainly, §§ 75-132.01 and 86-158 were in pari materia, and established the Legislature's intent that telecommunications appeals be perfected under the APA. Qwest also notes that in the midst of these statutory changes, this court decided two telecommunications appeals that were filed after April 7, 2000, but were not brought under the APA. See, In re Application of Lincoln Electric System, 265 Neb. 70, 655 N.W.2d 363 (2003), cert. denied 539 U.S. 943, 123 S. Ct. 2620, 156 L. Ed. 2d 630, and 539 U.S. 954, 123 S. Ct. 2620, 156 L. Ed. 2d 648; In re Application No. C-1889, 264 Neb. 167, 647 N.W.2d 45 (2002). Qwest contends that because jurisdictional questions can be raised by an appellate court sua sponte, see State ex rel. NSBA v. Krepela, 259 Neb. 395, 610 N.W.2d 1 (2000), by reaching the merits of those appeals, this court impliedly adopted Qwest's interpretation of § 75-132.01. However, neither In re Application of Lincoln Electric System nor In re Application No. C-1889 expressly addresses any issue of appellate jurisdiction, and those opinions are not authority for any point not specifically raised as an issue addressed by this court. See Farmers Union Co-op Ins. Co. v. Allied Prop. &amp; Cas., 253 Neb. 177, 569 N.W.2d 436 (1997). Furthermore, as the appellees noted at oral argument, we rejected an argument functionally identical to Qwest's in Ulbrick v. City of Nebraska City, 180 Neb. 229, 141 N.W.2d 849 (1966), in which it was argued that the plaintiffs had failed to perfect their appeal by not following the statutory procedures for taking an appeal from a municipal annexation ordinance. We stated: Ulbrick, 180 Neb. at 231-32, 141 N.W.2d at 851-52. For the foregoing reasons, we reject Qwest's proposed interpretation of § 75-132.01. Read in pari materia, §§ 75-132.01 and 86-158 clearly stated that at the time Qwest filed its notice of appeal, telecommunications appeals were subject to the APA. By failing to proceed pursuant to the exclusive means for ap-pealing a PSC decision in a telecommunications case, Qwest failed to perfect its appeal. See, § 84-919; Nebraska Pub. Serv. Comm. v. Nebraska Pub. Power Dist., 256 Neb. 479, 590 N.W.2d 840 (1999). However, none of the parties' arguments have addressed the effect, if any, of statutory changes that were made subsequent to the filing of Qwest's appeal. For the sake of completeness, we consider those amendments. The former § 75-132.01(2) was repealed by 2003 Neb. Laws, L.B. 187, operative August 31, 2003. Section 75-132.01 (Supp. 2003) now provides: Consequently, the revised section seems to clearly limit itself to telecommunications appeals and provides specifically for an appeal to district court in circumstances in which the PSC has declined jurisdiction. This is consistent with the previous statutory scheme as amended by L.B. 1285. The section more pertinent to this appeal, however, is the newly amended § 75-136 (Supp. 2003), which now provides: (Emphasis supplied.) Section 86-158 (Supp. 2003), which was also amended by L.B. 187, now provides: (Emphasis supplied.) Specifically at issue here is the language of § 75-136 which states that "[a]ny appeal filed prior to August 31, 2003, shall be in accordance with sections 75-134, 75-136 to 75-138, and 75-156 as such sections existed prior to the changes made by Laws 2003, LB 187." This language does not mention the former § 75-132.01. For purposes of this discussion, we assume, without deciding, that the Legislature could, if it wished, retroactively affect our jurisdiction over appeals that had already been filed. See, e.g., Evans &amp; Sutherland Comp. v. State Tax, 953 P.2d 435 (Utah 1997). But see Rhodes v. Eckelman, 302 Or. 245, 728 P.2d 527 (1986) (en banc). The question is whether § 75-136 ex-presses an intent to retroactively confer appellate jurisdiction for an appeal that had previously been defective because it did not meet the statutory requirements in effect at the time that the notice of appeal was filed. We conclude that the plain language of the statutes expresses no such intent. The primary effect of § 75-136, as amended by L.B. 187, is that operative August 31, 2003, all appeals from the PSC, and not just telecommunications cases, generally are to be brought under the APA. But this does not evince an intent to change the specific provisions of the prior statutory scheme that in telecommunications cases, interested parties were already required to appeal under the APA. Section 86-158, both before and after it was amended by L.B. 187, required that appeals in telecommunications cases be perfected in accordance with the APA. In other words, before L.B. 187 was enacted, appeals in telecommunications cases were to be brought in accordance with the APA, and after L.B. 187, the same requirement was still in place. Read in pari materia, the changes affected by L.B. 187 do not evince a legislative intent to confer jurisdiction over telecommunications appeals that were not perfected under the statutory requirements in effect at the time the notice of appeal was filed. Rather, the opposite effect is discernible. L.B. 187 does not alter our conclusion that at the time Qwest's notice of appeal was filed, it was required to proceed pursuant to the APA. [7] Because Qwest failed to proceed under the APA, as required by the statutory scheme in effect at that time, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. When an appellate court is without jurisdiction to act, the appeal must be dismissed. In re Guardianship &amp; Conservatorship of Woltemath, ante p. 33, 680 N.W.2d 142 (2004). Consequently, we dismiss Qwest's appeal. APPEAL DISMISSED.