Opinion ID: 1804136
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: location of hearing

Text: Davis argues that her license revocation hearing was not held in accordance with § 60-6,205(6)(a), which provides in pertinent part: The hearing shall be conducted in the county in which the arrest occurred or in any other county agreed to by the parties. The record before us does not conclusively establish the location of the hearing officer, Davis, or Bruhn at Davis' license revocation hearing. The above-quoted portion of § 60-6,205(6)(a) was the subject of our decision in Muir v. Nebraska Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 260 Neb. 450, 618 N.W.2d 444 (2000). In that case, we held that § 60-6,205(6)(a) is a venue statute and that generalized objections directed to the method by which the hearing was being held were not objections to venue. See, also, Reiter v. Wimes, 263 Neb. 277, 640 N.W.2d 19 (2002). At the outset of her hearing, Davis objected to the proceedings by way of telephone conference and to the telephonic nature of this hearing. These objections did not address the location or venue of the hearing, as required by Muir, but, rather, the method of the hearing. Davis' improper objections and subsequent participation in the hearing without objecting to the hearing location constituted a waiver of any objection she may have had. See Muir v. Nebraska Dept. of Motor Vehicles, supra . Accordingly, this assignment of error is without merit.