Opinion ID: 1911296
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: The threshold question is, What is the proper statutory basis for jurisdiction over this declaratory judgment action? The district court claimed jurisdiction over the action under § 84-911 of the Administrative Procedure Act, which provides that the validity of any rule or regulation promulgated by an administrative agency may be determined upon a petition for declaratory judgment. Although we agree that the district court had jurisdiction over the matter, its jurisdiction arises under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act rather than under § 84-911. It is the nature of the rule or regulation before us that dictates which of the declaratory judgment statutes applies. The Legislature incorporated into § 89-186 by reference Handbook 130, which contains § 1.1.2 and other applicable regulations, as it existed on June 30, 1992. The Legislature may lawfully adopt by reference an existing law or regulation of another jurisdiction. Clemens v. Harvey, 247 Neb. 77, 525 N.W.2d 185 (1994); Anderson v. Tiemann, 182 Neb. 393, 155 N.W.2d 322 (1967). When a regulation is adopted by reference, the effect is the same as if the regulation had been written into the adopting statute. Clemens v. Harvey, supra . Therefore, § 1.1.2 is not a rule or regulation promulgated by an administrative agency but is a statute lawfully enacted by the Legislature, and § 84-911 of the Administrative Procedure Act does not apply. However, the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act provides that any person whose rights are affected by a statute may have determined any question of construction or validity under the statute and obtain a declaration of rights. § 25-21,150. Generally, an action for declaratory judgment against the state may not be had without the state's consent, because the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act does not operate as a waiver of the state's sovereign immunity. Riley v. State, 244 Neb. 250, 506 N.W.2d 45 (1993). However, a declaratory judgment action against a state officer or agent which seeks to restrain state officials from performing affirmative acts is not a suit against the state and is not prohibited by principles governing sovereign immunity. See County of Lancaster v. State, 247 Neb. 723, 529 N.W.2d 791 (1995). In its petition, Baker's joined three parties: the State; Larry Sitzman, the director of the Department of Agriculture; and Malone, the director of the Department's weights and measures division. Sitzman and Malone are responsible for whatever action is taken against Baker's for alleged noncompliance with the Department's interpretation of § 1.1.2. Thus, Baker's is entitled to obtain a determination of the validity of the Department's construction of § 1.1.2.