Opinion ID: 1749609
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: district court's purported affirmance of waitt application

Text: In their third and final assignment of error, Appellants argue that the district court erred when it found that [t]he decisions of the . . . Board . . . ` in granting Waitt's application and denying Lamar's application on August 21, 2003, were not illegal; were supported by the evidence; and were not arbitrary, unreasonable or clearly wrong.' (Emphasis supplied.) In support of their argument, Appellants, citing Kuhlmann v. City of Omaha, 251 Neb. 176, 556 N.W.2d 15 (1996), argue that the district court's review extended only to issues which were brought up for review from the Board and that the granting of Waitt's application was not properly before the district court. Although we agree with Appellants that the district court would have lacked jurisdiction to determine any issues related to Waitt's application, we do not read the district court's order as doing so. Rather, we read the district court's reference to the Waitt application as merely the court's recognition of the interrelatedness of the two applications and not an attempt by the district court to rule on the merits of Waitt's application. Appellants' third and final assignment of error is without merit.