Opinion ID: 1242127
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: dnr's cross-appeal

Text: [6] On cross-appeal, the DNR assigns that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the APA action because the DNR's order did not fall within any of the three categories that may be appealed under the APA. [14] In particular, the DNR contends that we are not presented with a contested case under the APA. We conclude, however, that even assuming the April 21, 2006, order was not part of a contested case and is not appealable under the APA, we nevertheless have jurisdiction to decide the issue of whether the DNR exceeded its authority in enacting 457 Neb. Admin. Code, ch. 24, § 001.02. Section 84-911(1) provides: [T]he validity of any rule or regulation may be determined upon a petition for a declaratory judgment thereon addressed to the district court of Lancaster County if it appears that the rule or regulation or its threatened application interferes with or impairs or threatens to interfere with or impair the legal rights or privileges of the petitioner. The agency shall be made a party to the proceeding. The declaratory judgment may be rendered whether or not the petitioner has first requested the agency to pass upon the validity of the rule or regulation in question. In fact, the District did file a declaratory judgment action against the DNR questioning the validity of the regulation. Accordingly, the district court, and now this court, had jurisdiction to determine whether the DNR exceeded its authority by enacting the regulation in question. We need not further address the DNR's cross-appeal.