NE Code § 77-5019 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 77 - Revenue and Taxation|77-5019 - Appeals; judicial review; procedure.

77-5019.  Appeals; judicial review; procedure.(1) Any party aggrieved by a final decision in a case appealed to the commission, any party aggrieved by a final decision of the commission on a petition, any party aggrieved by an order of the commission issued pursuant to section 77-5020 or sections 77-5023 to 77-5028, or any party aggrieved by a final decision of the commission appealed by the Tax Commissioner or the Property Tax Administrator pursuant to section 77-701 shall be entitled to judicial review in the Court of Appeals. Upon request of the county, the Attorney General may appear and represent the county or political subdivision in cases in which the commission is not a party. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent resort to other means of review, redress, or relief provided by law.(2)(a) Proceedings for review shall be instituted by filing a petition and the appropriate docket fees in the Court of Appeals:(i) Within thirty days after the date on which a final appealable order is entered by the commission; or(ii) For orders issued pursuant to section 77-5028, within thirty days after May 15 or thirty days after the date ordered pursuant to section 77-1514, whichever is later.(b) All parties of record shall be made parties to the proceedings for review. The commission shall only be made a party of record if the action complained of is an order issued by the commission pursuant to section 77-1504.01 or 77-5020 or sections 77-5023 to 77-5028. Summons shall be served on all parties within thirty days after the filing of the petition in the manner provided for service of a summons in a civil action. The court, in its discretion, may permit other interested persons to intervene. No bond or undertaking is required for an appeal to the Court of Appeals.(c) A petition for review shall set forth: (i) The name and mailing address of the petitioner; (ii) the name and mailing address of the county whose action is at issue or the commission; (iii) identification of the final decision at issue together with a duplicate copy of the final decision; (iv) the identification of the parties in the case that led to the final decision; (v) the facts to demonstrate proper venue; (vi) the petitioner's reasons for believing that relief should be granted; and (vii) a request for relief, specifying the type and extent of the relief requested.(3) The filing of the petition or the service of summons upon the commission shall not stay enforcement of a decision. The commission may order a stay. The court may order a stay after notice of the application for the stay to the commission and to all parties of record. The court may require the party requesting the stay to give bond in such amount and conditioned as the court directs.(4) Upon receipt of a petition the date for submission of the official record shall be determined by the court. The commission shall prepare a certified copy of the official record of the proceedings had before the commission in the case. The official record shall include: (a) Notice of all proceedings; (b) any pleadings, motions, requests, preliminary or intermediate rulings and orders, and similar correspondence to or from the commission pertaining to the case; (c) the transcribed record of the hearing before the commission, including all exhibits and evidence introduced during the hearing, a statement of matters officially noticed by the commission during the proceeding, and all proffers of proof and objections and rulings thereon; and (d) the final order appealed from. The official record in an appeal of a commission decision issued pursuant to sections 77-5023 to 77-5028 may be limited by the request of a petitioner to those parts of the record pertaining to a specific county. The commission shall charge the petitioner with the reasonable direct cost or require the petitioner to pay the cost for preparing the official record for transmittal to the court in all cases except when the petitioner is not required to pay a filing fee. If payment is required, payment of the cost, as estimated by the commission, for preparation of the official record shall be paid to the commission prior to preparation of the official record and the commission shall not transmit the official record to the court until payment of the actual costs of its preparation is received.(5) The review shall be conducted by the court for error on the record of the commission. If the court determines that the interest of justice would be served by the resolution of any other issue not raised before the commission, the court may remand the case to the commission for further proceedings. The court may affirm, reverse, or modify the decision of the commission or remand the case for further proceedings.(6) Appeals under this section shall be given precedence over all civil cases.Source   Laws 1995, LB 490, § 19;   Laws 1997, LB 165, § 4;  Laws 1999, LB 140, § 5;  Laws 2000, LB 968, § 76;  Laws 2001, LB 465, § 9;  Laws 2005, LB 15, § 11;  Laws 2006, LB 808, § 42;  Laws 2008, LB965, § 21;  Laws 2010, LB877, § 11;  Laws 2011, LB384, § 32. Annotations  1. Standard of Review 2. Jurisdiction 3. Miscellaneous 1. Standard of Review Questions of law arising during appellate review of Tax Equalization and Review Commission decisions are reviewed de novo. Cain v. Custer Cty. Bd. of Equal., 298 Neb. 834, 906 N.W.2d 285 (2018). On appeal, an order that subsection (5) of this section defines as a "final decision" is reviewed for error on the record. When reviewing a judgment for errors appearing on the record, an appellate court's inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable. County of Webster v. Nebraska Tax Equal. & Rev. Comm., 296 Neb. 751, 896 N.W.2d 887 (2017). When reviewing a judgment for errors appearing on the record, the inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable. An agency decision is supported by competent evidence, sufficient evidence, or substantial evidence if the agency could reasonably have found the facts as it did on the basis of the testimony and exhibits contained in the record before it. Agency action is arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable if it is taken in disregard of the facts or circumstances of the case, without some basis which would lead a reasonable and honest person to the same conclusion. Agency action taken in disregard of the agency's own substantive rules is also arbitrary and capricious. County of Douglas v. Nebraska Tax Equal. & Rev. Comm., 296 Neb. 501, 894 N.W.2d 308 (2017). Pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, because the Tax Equalization and Review Commission performs essentially the same functions that were performed by the State Board of Equalization and Assessment, the appellate court considers appeals from the commission's decisions under the same standards and principles that were applied to appeals from equalization proceedings before the board. Pursuant to subsection (5) of this section, appellate review of a Tax Equalization Review Commission decision shall be conducted for error on the record of the commission. County of Douglas v. Nebraska Tax Equal. & Rev. Comm., 262 Neb. 578, 635 N.W.2d 413 (2001). Appellate review of the decisions of the Nebraska Tax Equalization and Review Commission is limited to error on the record. Lyman-Richey Corp. v. Cass Cty. Bd. of Equal., 258 Neb. 1003, 607 N.W.2d 806 (2000); Ash Grove Cement Co. v. Cass Cty. Bd. of Equal., 258 Neb. 990, 607 N.W.2d 810 (2000); Kawasaki Motors Corp. v. Lancaster Cty. Bd. of Equal., 7 Neb. App. 655, 584 N.W.2d 63 (1998). Decisions of the Tax Equalization and Review Commission are reviewed for error appearing on the record. Washington Cty. Bd. of Equal. v. Rushmore Borglum, 11 Neb. App. 377, 650 N.W.2d 504 (2002). Pursuant to subsection (5) of this section, when reviewing a judgment of the Tax Equalization and Review Commission for errors appearing on the record, the inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable. Dodge County Bd. v. Nebraska Tax Equal. & Rev. Comm., 10 Neb. App. 927, 639 N.W.2d 683 (2002). Pursuant to subsection (5) of this section, appellate review of a Tax Equalization and Review Commission decision shall be conducted for error on the record; the appellate court's inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable. Krusemark v. Thurston Cty. Bd. of Equal., 10 Neb. App. 35, 624 N.W.2d 328 (2001). 2. Jurisdiction Where the Tax Equalization and Review Commission lacked jurisdiction over a tax valuation appeal because of the appellant's failure to pay a filing fee, the Nebraska Court of Appeals also lacked jurisdiction over the appellant's further appeal filed pursuant to this section. Widtfeldt v. Tax Equal. & Rev. Comm., 15 Neb. App. 410, 728 N.W.2d 295 (2007). Pursuant to subsection (2) of this section, failure to accomplish service of process upon the county board of equalization within 30 days after filing the petition for judicial review is necessary to confer subject matter jurisdiction upon the reviewing court. Widtfeldt v. Holt Cty. Bd. of Equal., 12 Neb. App. 499, 677 N.W.2d 521 (2004). The Nebraska Court of Appeals did not have jurisdiction under subsection (1) of this section to hear county's appeal of claim brought pursuant to section 77-1504.01 because the claim was not a decision appealed to the Nebraska Tax Equalization and Review Commission and was not brought pursuant to section 77-5028. Boone Cty. Bd. of Equal. v. Nebraska Tax Equal. and Rev. Comm., 9 Neb. App. 298, 611 N.W.2d 119 (2000). Under this section, service of summons within 30 days of the filing of a petition for review of the commission's decision is necessary to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the Court of Appeals. McLaughlin v. Jefferson Cty. Bd. of Equal., 5 Neb. App. 781, 567 N.W.2d 794 (1997). 3. Miscellaneous Subsection (2)(a) of this section provides for service of only the state or a political subdivision. Cargill Meat Solutions v. Colfax Cty. Bd. of Equal., 281 Neb. 93, 798 N.W.2d 823 (2011). The plain language in subsection (2)(a) of this section referring to "the action complained of" refers to the particular Tax Equalization and Review Commission order being appealed and does not refer to a previous order of the commission which might be relevant to issues in the current appeal. Marshall v. Dawes Cty. Bd. of Equal., 265 Neb. 33, 654 N.W.2d 184 (2002). Pursuant to subsection (2) of this section, except for orders issued by the Nebraska Tax Equalization and Review Commission pursuant to section 77-1504.01 or section 77-5023, the commission is not a proper party to a proceeding for judicial review of an order of the commission. Widtfeldt v. Holt Cty. Bd. of Equal., 12 Neb. App. 499, 677 N.W.2d 521 (2004). Pursuant to subsection (2) of this section, the county board of equalization is a necessary party to a proceeding for judicial review of an order of the Nebraska Tax Equalization and Review Commission. Widtfeldt v. Holt Cty. Bd. of Equal., 12 Neb. App. 499, 677 N.W.2d 521 (2004).