Opinion ID: 2208063
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Adams' jurisdictional claim is based on § 83-1025, which states that a mental health petition must be filed in the judicial district in which the subject is found. According to Adams' interpretation of § 83-1025, to confer jurisdiction on a county board of mental health, the person to be committed must be physically present within the judicial district where the mental health board is located when the mental health petition is initially filed with the board which will hold the commitment hearing. Because Adams was in Lancaster County, outside the judicial district in which Morrill County is situated, Adams argues that the Morrill County board of mental health lacked jurisdiction in the proceedings for Adams' commitment. Jurisdiction is the inherent power or authority to decide a case; venue is the place of trial of an actionthe site where the power to adjudicate is to be exercised. State ex rel. Bauersachs v. Williams, 215 Neb. 757, 759, 340 N.W.2d 431, 433 (1983). See, also, Blitzkie v. State, 228 Neb. 409, 422 N.W.2d 773 (1988); Chicago Lumber Co. v. School District No. 71, 227 Neb. 355, 417 N.W.2d 757 (1988). Jurisdiction of the subject matter is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong; the power to deal with the general subject involved in the action; and means not simply jurisdiction of the particular case then occupying the attention of the court but jurisdiction of the class of cases to which the particular case belongs.... Lewin v. Lewin, 174 Neb. 596, 599-600, 119 N.W.2d 96, 99 (1962) (quoting 21 C.J.S. Courts § 23 (1940)). Section 83-1025 bears a striking resemblance to the statute involved in State ex rel. Bauersachs v. Williams, supra . In Bauersachs, the plaintiff filed a paternity action in Sarpy County, in spite of the fact that both the plaintiff and her child were domiciled in Douglas County. According to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 43-1411 (Reissue 1984), a proceeding to establish paternity may be instituted in any district court of the district where the child is domiciled or found.... In rejecting Williams' claim that the Sarpy County District Court lacked jurisdiction, we noted that, generally speaking, Nebraska's district courts are empowered to hear paternity cases and concluded: Williams' question concerning the proceedings relates to venue and not to jurisdiction in the strict sense of the term. District Courts in Nebraska have general jurisdiction regarding filiation proceedings.... The trial court had jurisdiction to adjudicate Williams' paternity of [the] child. After commencement of the action in Sarpy County, Williams did not request transfer of the proceedings.... Williams did not object to venue until conclusion of the evidence at trial. Unless prohibited by a venue statute, a defendant can waive the personal privilege to be sued in a particular county. See 92 C.J.S. Venue § 77 (1955). In the absence of the appropriate objection to venue or the timely motion to transfer the proceedings, Williams cannot now question venue of the proceedings in Sarpy County. 215 Neb. at 759-60, 340 N.W.2d at 433. Beyond question, the Morrill County board of mental health, by virtue of the Nebraska Mental Health Commitment Act, is empowered to hear a mental health petition for commitment of a mentally ill dangerous person to an appropriate mental health facility. Therefore, in Adams' case, a board of mental health has subject matter jurisdiction. In examining § 83-1025, we note that a district court, within the judicial district where the alleged mentally ill dangerous person is found at the commencement of the proceedings, may, on good cause shown, authorize the mental health proceedings to be filed in another judicial district, effectively transferring the mental health proceedings to another judicial district by a procedure somewhat similar to the transfer of civil proceedings from the district court of one county to the district court of another county. See Neb.Rev. Stat. § 25-410 (Reissue 1985). If § 83-1025 were literally construed, as suggested by Adams, the procedure authorized by § 83-1025 regarding refiling or transferring mental health proceedings would be tantamount to a district court conferring subject matter jurisdiction on another tribunal, which lacked jurisdiction. We have repeatedly stated that litigants cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction on a judicial tribunal by acquiescence or consent. See, Coffelt v. City of Omaha, 223 Neb. 108, 388 N.W.2d 467 (1986); Riedy v. Riedy, 222 Neb. 310, 383 N.W.2d 742 (1986). Much of what we have expressed concerning litigants' inability to confer subject matter jurisdiction is analogously applicable in determining the nature of § 83-1025, that is, whether § 83-1025 prescribes jurisdiction or venue relative to mental health proceedings. If Adams' interpretation of § 83-1025 were correct, a district court might confer jurisdiction on another tribunal, which lacked jurisdiction in the first instance, inasmuch as jurisdiction, as a necessary conclusion of Adams' argument, is restrictively exercised only where the subject of a mental health petition is found when the petition is filed. However, the statutory procedure for refiling or transferring mental health proceedings, in accordance with the authority embodied in § 83-1025, indicates that the essence of § 83-1025 is venue, not jurisdiction. Therefore, we hold that § 83-1025 is a venue statute, expressing the correct site for proceedings before a county board of mental health pursuant to the Nebraska Mental Health Commitment Act. Unlike jurisdiction, venue is a personal privilege which, if not raised by a party, is waived unless prohibited by law. As we expressed in Blitzkie v. State, 228 Neb. 409, 421, 422 N.W.2d 773, 780 (1988): Where the court has general jurisdiction of the subject matter, the right of a defendant to be sued in a particular county or district is a mere personal privilege which he may waive. 92 C.J.S. Venue § 77 at 774 (1955). See, also, id., § 124 at 820: Venue statutes are generally regarded as conferring a personal privilege which may be waived by the defendant. See, also, Peitz v. Hausman, 198 Neb. 344, 252 N.W.2d 628 (1977); Corn Belt Products Co. v. Mullins, 172 Neb. 561, 110 N.W.2d 845 (1961). Adams' objection to the proceedings was directed to the mental health board's jurisdiction, not Morrill County as the correct venue for the proceedings. Adams never requested that the proceedings be refiled or transferred to another judicial district. Consequently, Adams waived any question about venue for the proceedings. We do not determine whether Lancaster County or Morrill County was the correct venue indicated by § 83-1025. Rather, as we have determined, the Morrill County board of mental health had jurisdiction for the proceedings, and Adams has failed to raise the question concerning the correct venue prescribed by § 83-1025. Hence, Adams' objection to jurisdiction is without merit.