Opinion ID: 1816952
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Contested

Text: For purposes of the APA, a contested case is defined as a proceeding before an agency in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges of specific parties are required by law or constitutional right to be determined after an agency hearing. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 84-901(3) (Reissue 1994). This court has held that a proceeding becomes a contested case when a hearing is required. Central Park Pharm. v. Nebraska Liq. Cont. Comm., 216 Neb. 676, 678, 344 N.W.2d 918, 920 (1984), citing J K & J, Inc. v. Nebraska Liquor Control Commission, 194 Neb. 413, 231 N.W.2d 694 (1975). This court has also held that when an administrative body acts in a quasi-judicial manner, due process requires notice and an opportunity for a full and fair hearing at some stage of the agency proceedings. City of Lincoln v. Twin Platte NRD, 250 Neb. 452, 551 N.W.2d 6 (1996). Therefore, if the Department acted in a quasijudicial manner, the instant case was contested. See Slack Nsg. Home v. Department of Soc. Servs., 247 Neb. 452, 528 N.W.2d 285 (1995). Generally, [t]he exercise of discretion to grant or deny a license, permit or other type of application is a quasi-judicial function. Sommerfield v. Helmick, 57 Cal.App.4th 315, 320, 67 Cal.Rptr.2d 51, 54 (1997). See, also, J K & J, Inc. v. Nebraska Liquor Control Commission, supra . In First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Department of Banking, 187 Neb. 562, 566, 192 N.W.2d 736, 739 (1971), we held that the Department must hold a hearing when determining whether to approve or deny an application to establish a savings and loan pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. section 8-331, R.R.S. 1943. This court's holding was based upon its conclusion that the Department's determination was quasi-judicial. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Department of Banking, supra . In the instant case, the Department's approval of a banking application was once again required, and as such, its action was quasi-judicial. See, also, Phelps County Savings Co. v. Dept. of Banking & Finance, 211 Neb. 683, 320 N.W.2d 99 (1982); Southwestern Bank & Trust Co. v. Dept. of Banking and Finance, 206 Neb. 599, 294 N.W.2d 343 (1980); and North Loup River P.P. & I. Dist. v. Loup River P.P. Dist., 162 Neb. 22, 74 N.W.2d 863 (1956).