Opinion ID: 1816952
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Aggrieved

Text: This court addressed whether a person has been aggrieved by an agency decision in Karnes v. Wilkinson Mfg., supra . In Karnes, this court held that the Tax Commissioner was not a person aggrieved because she sat on the same board that rendered the decision she intended to challenge. In so holding, we couched the issue in terms of standing, noting that the phrase person aggrieved is not defined by the APA. Clearly, the appellee minority shareholders in the instant case have standing. See Schmid v. Clarke, Inc., 245 Neb. 856, 515 N.W.2d 665 (1994). In Schmid, we indicated that the Department had the authority to review a merger application for fairness to the minority shareholders and that if the minority shareholders of a bank fail to object to the merger before the Department, they have waived their rights and are estopped from bringing a claim in the district court. Had the shareholders in Schmid been without standing, their failure to object before the Department would not have waived their right to receive fair value or estopped them from asserting that right. See, also, First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Department of Banking, supra . Because the instant case was contested and the appellee minority shareholders were persons aggrieved, we conclude that the district court properly asserted jurisdiction pursuant to the APA.