Court Opinion

ID: 9376663
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-03 15:05:41.856225+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:08.189314
License: Public Domain

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
03/03/2023 09:05 AM CST

                                                      - 668 -
                               Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                                        313 Nebraska Reports
                                 PRESERVE THE SANDHILLS V. CHERRY COUNTY
                                             Cite as 313 Neb. 668

                                   Preserve the Sandhills, LLC, et al.,
                                     appellants, v. Cherry County,
                                       Nebraska, et al., appellees.
                                                  ___ N.W.2d ___

                                        Filed March 3, 2023.    No. S-22-025.

                 1. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. A jurisdictional question that does not
                    involve a factual dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter
                    of law, which requires the appellate court to reach a conclusion indepen-
                    dent of the lower court’s decision.
                 2. ____: ____. Before reaching the legal issues presented for review, it is
                    the duty of an appellate court to determine whether it has jurisdiction
                    over the matter before it, even where no party has raised the issue.
                 3. ____: ____. An appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction over an
                    appeal if a party fails to properly perfect it.
                 4. Constitutional Law: Statutes: Jurisdiction: Time: Appeal and Error.
                    The appellate jurisdiction of a court is contingent upon timely compli-
                    ance with constitutional or statutory methods of appeal.
                 5. Statutes: Appeal and Error. The right of appeal in this state is purely
                    statutory; unless a statute provides for an appeal from the decision of a
                    quasi-judicial tribunal, such right does not exist.
                 6. Political Subdivisions: Appeal and Error. One who seeks to appeal
                    from a decision granting or denying a conditional use permit has
                    two statutory options: filing a petition in error under Neb. Rev. Stat.
                    § 25-1901 (Reissue 2016) or filing an appeal under Neb. Rev. Stat.
                    § 23-114.01(5) (Reissue 2022) and the procedure discussed in In re
                    Application of Olmer, 275 Neb. 852, 752 N.W.2d 124 (2008).
                 7. Political Subdivisions: Jurisdiction: Time: Appeal and Error. To
                    perfect an appeal from a decision regarding a conditional use permit
                    under Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 23-114.01(5) (Reissue 2022), 25-1937 (Reissue
                    2016), and 25-2729(1) (Cum. Supp. 2022), two jurisdictional require-
                    ments must be met within 30 days after the decision: (1) a notice
                    of appeal must be filed with the governmental entity that made the
                                   - 669 -
           Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                    313 Nebraska Reports
            PRESERVE THE SANDHILLS V. CHERRY COUNTY
                        Cite as 313 Neb. 668

    decision or with the county clerk and (2) the required district court
    docket fee must be deposited with the governmental entity that made the
    decision or with the county clerk.
 8. Political Subdivisions: Statutes: Time: Words and Phrases. Generally,
    when a statute requires that a document must be “filed” with a govern-
    mental entity by a particular date, it means the document must be in
    the possession of the governmental entity for filing within the requisite
    time period.
 9. Political Subdivisions: Presumptions: Time. Generally, the file stamp
    of a governmental entity is afforded a presumption of regularity, and
    in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the date a document was
    received by and in the possession of that governmental entity for filing
    is the date shown by the file stamp.
10. Jurisdiction: Records: Appeal and Error. It is the appellant’s burden
    to present a record establishing jurisdiction over the appeal.

  Appeal from the District Court for Cherry County: Mark D.
Kozisek, Judge. Affirmed.

   Jason M. Bruno, Diana J. Vogt, and Thomas G. Schumacher,
of Sherrets, Bruno & Vogt, L.L.C., for appellants.

  Eric A. Scott, Cherry County Attorney, and David S.
Houghton and Justin D. Eichmann, of Houghton, Bradford &
Whitted, P.C., L.L.O., for appellees Cherry County, Nebraska,
and Cherry County Board of Commissioners.

  Steven D. Davidson and Spencer R. Murphy, of Baird Holm,
L.L.P., for appellee BSH Kilgore, L.L.C.

  Steven G. Ranum and Richard A. DeWitt, of Croker Huck
Law Firm, for appellee Cherry County Wind, L.L.C.

   Heavican, C.J., Cassel, Stacy, Funke, Papik, Freudenberg,
JJ., and Carson, District Judge.

  Per Curiam.
  In 2019, the Cherry County Board of Commissioners
(County Board) granted a conditional use permit (CUP) to
                                  - 670 -
            Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                     313 Nebraska Reports
             PRESERVE THE SANDHILLS V. CHERRY COUNTY
                         Cite as 313 Neb. 668

construct a commercial wind turbine project near Kilgore,
Nebraska. Parties who opposed the project appealed the CUP
decision to the district court for Cherry County pursuant to
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 23-114.01(5) (Reissue 2022) and the pro-
cedure described by this court in In re Application of Olmer
(Olmer). 1 After litigating in district court for nearly 2 years, the
plaintiffs were allowed to amend their complaint to challenge
the CUP pursuant to a petition in error. 2 The district court sub-
sequently dismissed the operative amended complaint for lack
of jurisdiction, reasoning in part that the record did not show
compliance with the statutory requirements for a district court
to obtain jurisdiction over a petition in error.
   We affirm the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, but our
reasoning differs from that of the district court. Because this
matter was initially filed in the district court as a CUP appeal
under § 23-114.01(5), we review the statutory procedure and
timelines for perfecting such appeals. We ultimately conclude,
on this record, that compliance with the jurisdictional require-
ments has not been shown, and therefore, the district court
never acquired jurisdiction over this CUP appeal.
                        BACKGROUND
   In 2019, BSH Kilgore, LLC (BSH), applied for a CUP to
construct and operate commercial grade wind turbines and
related facilities in Cherry County near Kilgore. Preserve the
Sandhills, LLC (PTS), and Charlene Reiser-McCormick, along
with others, opposed issuance of the CUP. The County Board
granted BSH’s CUP application on October 29.
   On November 29, 2019, PTS and Reiser-McCormick filed
in the district court for Cherry County what they captioned
a “Complaint and Petition on Appeal” brought “pursuant to
Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 23-114.01 and 25-1937 and In re Olmer,
275 Neb. 852, 752 N.W.2d 124 (2008).” The complaint named
1
    In re Application of Olmer, 275 Neb. 852, 752 N.W.2d 124 (2008).
2
    See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1901 (Reissue 2016).
                                   - 671 -
            Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                     313 Nebraska Reports
             PRESERVE THE SANDHILLS V. CHERRY COUNTY
                         Cite as 313 Neb. 668

multiple defendants, including the County Board and BSH,
and it sought to vacate and invalidate the CUP issued to BSH.
After the defendants successfully moved to dismiss this com-
plaint for lack of standing, an amended complaint was filed.
   Like the original complaint, the amended complaint was
brought “pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 23-114.01 and
25-1937, [and] In re Olmer, 275 Neb. 852, 752 N.W.2d
124 (2008),” and it sought to vacate and invalidate the CUP
issued to BSH. However, the amended complaint added sev-
eral new plaintiffs, who were alleged to be the owners of
real property in Cherry County near where the wind turbines
authorized by the CUP would be constructed. The defendants
moved to dismiss the amended complaint on multiple grounds,
including lack of standing, but the district court overruled
the motion and allowed the CUP appeal to proceed on the
amended complaint.
   Eventually, the parties filed competing motions for sum-
mary judgment and an evidentiary hearing was held. After
evidence was adduced, the plaintiffs made an oral motion to
amend the operative complaint, explaining they wanted to
challenge the validity of the CUP pursuant to a petition in
error. 3 The court asked the plaintiffs’ counsel, “Are you will-
ing to be bound by that, that you will proceed on the petition
in error and will not re-raise the issue of trial de novo?” and
counsel responded, “Yes, Your Honor.” The court then entered
an order granting the oral motion to convert the proceedings
to a petition in error and overruling the competing motions for
summary judgment.
   The plaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint pur-
porting to appeal the validity of the CUP “pursuant to Neb.
Rev. Stat. §§ 23-114.01 and 25-1937, In re Olmer, 275 Neb.
853, 752 N.W.2d 124 (2008), and, pursuant to this amend-
ment, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1901.” After answers were filed,
the parties once again filed competing motions for summary
3
    See § 25-1901 and Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-1903 to 25-1908 (Reissue 2016).
                             - 672 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  313 Nebraska Reports
          PRESERVE THE SANDHILLS V. CHERRY COUNTY
                      Cite as 313 Neb. 668

judgment. An evidentiary hearing was held, and the matter was
taken under advisement.
   In an order entered November 12, 2021, the district court
granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and
dismissed the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint with preju-
dice for lack of jurisdiction. The court’s order addressed two
ways in which jurisdiction was lacking. First, it reasoned the
plaintiffs lacked standing sufficient to confer subject matter
jurisdiction on the district court under the second amended
complaint. Alternatively, it reasoned the plaintiffs had “aban-
doned” their CUP appeal pursuant to § 23-114.01(5) and
sought to convert the proceedings to a petition in error, but the
appellate record did not show compliance with the statutory
procedure to give a district court jurisdiction over a petition
in error.
   The plaintiffs (hereinafter the appellants) filed this appeal,
which we moved to our docket on our own motion. After
doing so, we issued an order directing the appellants to show
cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to
present a record demonstrating the CUP appeal was timely
perfected in the district court. The appellants filed a response
which we discuss later in our analysis, and we reserved rul-
ing on the order to show cause until plenary submission after
oral argument.
                  ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
   The appellants’ brief assigns multiple errors on appeal, but
we do not reach any of them. Instead, as we will explain,
we conclude the record presented on appeal does not show
that PTS and Reiser-McCormick timely perfected their CUP
appeal in the district court, and therefore, that court never
acquired jurisdiction.
                   STANDARD OF REVIEW
   [1] A jurisdictiOnal question that does not involve a factual
dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter of
                                     - 673 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      313 Nebraska Reports
              PRESERVE THE SANDHILLS V. CHERRY COUNTY
                          Cite as 313 Neb. 668

law, which requires the appellate court to reach a conclusion
independent of the lower court’s decision. 4

                             ANALYSIS
    [2-4] Before reaching the legal issues presented for review,
it is the duty of an appellate court to determine whether it has
jurisdiction over the matter before it, even where no party has
raised the issue. 5 It is fundamental that an appellate court does
not acquire jurisdiction over an appeal if a party fails to prop-
erly perfect it. 6 The appellate jurisdiction of a court is contin-
gent upon timely compliance with constitutional or statutory
methods of appeal. 7
    [5,6] The right of appeal in this state is purely statutory;
unless a statute provides for an appeal from the decision of a
quasi-judicial tribunal, such right does not exist. 8 We have rec-
ognized that one who seeks to appeal from a decision granting
or denying a CUP has two statutory options: filing a petition in
error under § 25-1901 or filing an appeal under § 23-114.01(5)
and the procedure discussed in Olmer. 9 The statutory procedure
for conferring jurisdiction on the district court varies depend-
ing on which method is selected. 10 Likewise, the nature and
 4
     Main St Properties v. City of Bellvue, 309 Neb. 738, 962 N.W.2d 333
     (2021); Champion v. Hall County, 309 Neb. 55, 958 N.W.2d 396 (2021).
 5
     See, In re Estate of Koetter, 312 Neb. 549, 980 N.W.2d 376 (2022); Tegra
     Corp. v. Boeshart, 311 Neb. 783, 976 N.W.2d 165 (2022); In re Interest of
     Luz P. et al., 295 Neb. 814, 891 N.W.2d 651 (2017).
 6
     In re Interest of Luz P. et al., supra note 5.
 7
     Id.
 8
     Preserve the Sandhills v. Cherry County, 310 Neb. 184, 964 N.W.2d 721
     (2021); Champion v. Hall County, supra note 4.
 9
     See Olmer, supra note 1. Accord Preserve the Sandhills, supra note 8.
10
     Compare §§ 25-1903 to 25-1908 (statutory procedure for perfecting
     petition in error under § 25-1901), with Olmer, supra note 1, and Neb.
     Rev. Stat. §§ 25-1937 (Reissue 2016) and 25-2729 (Cum. Supp. 2022)
     (statutory procedure for perfecting CUP appeal under § 23-114.01(5)).
                                     - 674 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      313 Nebraska Reports
              PRESERVE THE SANDHILLS V. CHERRY COUNTY
                          Cite as 313 Neb. 668

scope of the district court’s review varies depending on which
method is selected. 11
   We have recognized that courts must respect an appellant’s
chosen method of appealing a CUP decision, 12 and we have
cautioned that when the appellants choose a method they “must
live with the consequences that follow.” 13 During oral argu-
ment before this court, the appellants confirmed that initially
they chose to file this CUP appeal pursuant to § 23-114.01(5),
§ 25-1937, and the Olmer procedure; they did not pursue a
petition in error.
   As such, to determine whether this CUP appeal was timely
perfected in the district court, we begin our jurisdictional
analysis by reviewing the statutory procedure and timeline for
perfecting CUP appeals under § 23-114.01(5), § 25-1937, and
the procedure discussed in Olmer. We then consider whether
the record on appeal establishes compliance with that statutory
procedure, and we conclude it does not. Ultimately, we deter-
mine the district court never acquired jurisdiction of this CUP
appeal, and we therefore affirm the judgment of dismissal for
lack of jurisdiction.
   Given this dispositional path, we do not address whether
there are any circumstances under which an appeal brought
under § 23-114.01(5) can be converted into a petition in error
under § 25-1901, and we express no opinion on whether these
alternative methods for seeking district court review of a CUP
decision can be pursued simultaneously.
11
     Compare Olmer, supra note 1 (holding CUP appeals brought under
     §§ 23-114.01(5) and 25-1937 require district court to conduct trial de
     novo on issues made up by pleadings), with Douglas County v. Archie, 295
     Neb. 674, 687, 891 N.W.2d 93, 103 (2017) (holding district court’s review
     under petition in error is restricted to record made before lower tribunal
     and court “does not reweigh evidence or make independent findings of
     fact”).
12
     See Olmer, supra note 1.
13
     Preserve the Sandhills, supra note 8, 310 Neb. at 194, 964 N.W.2d at 728.
                              - 675 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  313 Nebraska Reports
          PRESERVE THE SANDHILLS V. CHERRY COUNTY
                      Cite as 313 Neb. 668

                       CUP Appeals Under
                           § 23-114.01(5)
   Section 23-114.01(5) expressly authorizes “an appeal of a
decision by the county board of commissioners or supervisors
regarding a conditional use” and provides that such appeals
“shall be made to the district court.” Almost 15 years ago in
Olmer, we recognized that although § 23-114.01(5) created a
statutory right to appeal a CUP decision to the district court,
it did not specify the procedure for perfecting such an appeal.
In such a circumstance, we turn to § 25-1937, which provides
in part:
         When the Legislature enacts a law providing for an
      appeal without providing the procedure therefor, the pro-
      cedure for appeal to the district court shall be the same
      as for appeals from the county court to the district court
      in civil actions. Trial in the district court shall be de
      novo upon the issues made up by the pleadings in the
      district court.
   The statutory procedure for appealing a civil action from
county court to district court is set out in § 25-2729. Currently,
and at the time this CUP appeal was filed in the district court,
§ 25-2729 provides in relevant part:
         (1) In order to perfect an appeal from the county court,
      the appealing party shall within thirty days after the entry
      of the judgment or final order complained of:
         (a) File with the clerk of the county court a notice of
      appeal; and
         (b) Deposit with the clerk of the county court a docket
      fee of the district court for cases originally commenced in
      district court.
         (2) Satisfaction of the requirements of subsection (1) of
      this section shall perfect the appeal and give the district
      court jurisdiction of the matter appealed.
   In Olmer, we acknowledged that the appeal procedure in
§ 25-2729 was “intended to apply to appeals from county
                                 - 676 -
            Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                     313 Nebraska Reports
             PRESERVE THE SANDHILLS V. CHERRY COUNTY
                         Cite as 313 Neb. 668

court and, as a result, cannot be applied literally” 14 to CUP
appeals under § 23-114.01(5). That is so because decisions
granting or denying CUP applications do not originate in
county court. Consequently, Olmer held that when bringing
a CUP appeal under § 23-114.01(5), the procedural require-
ments of § 25-2729 must be “drawn by analogy.” 15 More
specifically, Olmer held that when appealing from a CUP
decision under § 23-114.01(5), “§ 25-2729(1)(a), in essence,
requires that the appealing party file a notice of appeal with
the lower tribunal or decisionmaker within 30 days” of the
CUP decision. 16
   Olmer found the notice of appeal requirement in
§ 25-2729(1)(a) had been satisfied because the record showed
a notice of appeal had been filed with the county commission-
ers and file stamped by the county clerk within 30 days of the
CUP decision. And, without directly addressing how to satisfy
the docket fee requirement by analogy, Olmer noted that the
record sufficiently “establishe[d] that the other requirements
for appeal to the district court were met.” 17
   More recently, in Kowalewski v. Madison Cty. Bd. of
Comrs., 18 we considered whether the required docket fee had
been timely deposited in a CUP appeal under § 23-114.01(5).
In Kowalewski, the district court record contained a notice of
appeal that was file stamped by the county clerk 29 days after
the CUP was issued. The record also established that when
the notice of appeal was filed, the appellants “deposited with
the county clerk . . . a check for $82 payable to the Madison
County District Court intended to cover the filing fee.” 19 At
14
     Olmer, supra note 1, 275 Neb. at 860, 752 N.W.2d at 130.
15
     Id.
16
     Id.
17
     Id., 275 Neb. at 861, 752 N.W.2d at 130.
18
     Kowalewski v. Madison Cty. Bd. of Comrs., 310 Neb. 812, 969 N.W.2d
     392 (2022).
19
     Id. at 813, 969 N.W.2d at 393.
                                      - 677 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      313 Nebraska Reports
              PRESERVE THE SANDHILLS V. CHERRY COUNTY
                          Cite as 313 Neb. 668

the time, however, the district court’s filing fee was actually
$83. The appellants paid an additional $1 to the clerk of the
district court 31 days after the CUP decision, and the district
court dismissed the CUP appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding
the required docket fee had not been timely deposited. The dis-
missal was appealed, but we found no error. We noted that pay-
ment of the docket fee within 30 days was jurisdictional, and
we reasoned that “strict compliance with that requirement” 20
was necessary. Because the full amount of the required docket
fee had not been paid within the 30-day appeal period, we
agreed the CUP appeal had not been timely perfected in the
district court.
   [7] Olmer and Kowalewski demonstrate that to perfect an
appeal from a CUP decision under §§ 23-114.01(5), 25-1937,
and 25-2729(1), two jurisdictional requirements must be met
within 30 days after the decision: (1) a notice of appeal must
be filed with the governmental entity that made the CUP deci-
sion or with the county clerk and (2) the required district court
docket fee must be deposited with the governmental entity that
made the CUP decision or with the county clerk.
   Applying these jurisdictional requirements here, PTS and
Reiser-McCormick were required to (1) file a notice of appeal
with either the County Board or the county clerk within 30
days after the October 29, 2019, decision to grant the CUP and
(2) deposit the district court docket fee with either the County
Board or the county clerk within that same time period.
   [8] The parties have not directed us to any statute or regula-
tion setting out the process for filing a notice of appeal with
the County Board or the county clerk in Cherry County, and
we are aware of none. Generally, when a statute requires
that a document must be “filed” with a governmental entity
by a particular date, it means the document must “be in the
possession of” the governmental entity for filing within the
20
     Id. at 816, 969 N.W.2d at 395.
                                     - 678 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      313 Nebraska Reports
              PRESERVE THE SANDHILLS V. CHERRY COUNTY
                          Cite as 313 Neb. 668

requisite time period. 21 The jurisdictional issue here, then, is
whether our record establishes that the notice of appeal and
the docket fee were in the possession of the County Board or
the county clerk for filing within 30 days after the CUP deci-
sion was issued.
   [9] Generally, the file stamp of a governmental entity is
afforded a presumption of regularity, and in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, the date a document was received by
and in the possession of that governmental entity for filing is
the date shown by the file stamp. 22 But here, our jurisdictional
review of the appellate record showed no file-stamped notice
of appeal and nothing documenting that the required docket
fee was deposited with the County Board or the county clerk
within 30 days of the CUP decision. Based on these deficien-
cies, we issued an order directing the appellants to show cause
why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction,
and we specifically directed them to demonstrate strict compli-
ance with the requirements of § 25-2729 and the procedure set
out in Olmer and Kowalewski.

                      Response to Order
                         to Show Cause
   The appellants responded to the order to show cause by fil-
ing an affidavit signed by their attorney. Counsel’s affidavit
states in relevant part:
21
     In re App. No. C-4973 of Skrdlant, 305 Neb. 635, 640, 942 N.W.2d 196,
     200 (2020). See, also, Creighton St. Joseph Hosp. v. Tax Eq. & Rev.
     Comm., 260 Neb. 905, 620 N.W.2d 90 (2000) (superseded by statute on
     other grounds as stated in In re App. No. C-4973 of Skrdlant, supra note
     21).
22
     See In re App. No. C-4973 of Skrdlant, supra note 21. Accord State v.
     Hess, 261 Neb. 368, 378, 622 N.W.2d 891, 901 (2001) (holding “we must
     presume, in the absence of affirmative evidence to the contrary, that the
     clerk performed his or her duty and endorsed the notice of appeal with the
     date it was in fact presented to him or her for filing”).
                              - 679 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  313 Nebraska Reports
          PRESERVE THE SANDHILLS V. CHERRY COUNTY
                      Cite as 313 Neb. 668

         3. I have knowledge of the timing and manner of
      appeal and prepared the appeal documents and directed
      the delivery of the appeal documents and appeal fee.
         4. At my direction, Appellants hand delivered a Notice
      of Appeal, a check for $83.00 for the filing fee, a Praecipe
      for Transcript, and a Praecipe for Bill of Exceptions,
      to the Clerk of Cherry County, Nebraska, Brittny N.
      Petersen, at 365 North Main Street, #5, in Valentine,
      Nebraska on November 12, 2019. All of the documents
      were accepted by the Clerk’s office.
   Attached to counsel’s affidavit were several exhibits, includ-
ing (1) a copy of a notice of appeal that was signed by counsel
but was neither dated nor file stamped and (2) a copy of a
check made payable to the county clerk in the amount of $83,
with a memo that read “District Court filing Fee.” But coun-
sel’s affidavit does not identify who hand delivered the notice
of appeal and filing fee check on November 12, 2019, nor does
it identify who in “the Clerk’s Office” accepted such docu-
ments or on what date.
   During oral argument before this court, counsel for the
appellants generally acknowledged that our record contains
no file-stamped notice of appeal, but he argued that Olmer
created “an obscure procedure that frankly rarely is followed
and a lot of the clerks struggle with.” Counsel argued that
under Olmer, it was the county clerk’s responsibility to file
stamp the notice of appeal and submit it to the district court,
and he candidly admitted, “I’m not sure whether or not they
did that.”
   Counsel’s affidavit also states that he “requested file-stamped
copies of the appeal documents . . . , but for some reason those
file-stamped copies were not provided, but instead [were]
delivered to the Cherry County Attorney.” Our record does
not explain why, after learning the county attorney had file-
stamped copies, the appellants’ counsel was not able to obtain
such copies or produce them in response to the order to show
                                     - 680 -
              Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                       313 Nebraska Reports
               PRESERVE THE SANDHILLS V. CHERRY COUNTY
                           Cite as 313 Neb. 668

cause. And although some of counsel’s averments seem to
imply that the conduct of county officials frustrated his efforts
to prove the CUP appeal was timely perfected, his affidavit
stopped short of making such a claim.
   Ultimately, whether or not a file-stamped copy of the notice
of appeal exists, the fact remains that no dated or file-stamped
notice of appeal appears in our appellate record. And without a
file-stamped notice of appeal, there can be no presumption that
the notice of appeal was timely filed. 23
   Nor can we conclude that counsel’s affidavit established
compliance with either of the jurisdictional requirements under
§ 23-114.01(5), § 25-2729, and our decisions in Olmer and
Kowalewski. Counsel’s general averment that on November
12, 2019, he directed unidentified individuals to hand deliver
the notice of appeal and the docket fee to the county clerk
does not establish that these documents were in the posses-
sion of the County Board or the county clerk for filing within
30 days after the CUP decision. Nor does counsel’s general
averment that “[A]ll of the documents were accepted by the
Clerk’s office” establish the date on which such documents
were accepted. There were no affidavits provided from anyone
who claims to have hand delivered the notice of appeal and the
docket fee to either the County Board or the county clerk on
a particular date, and no affidavits from anyone who claims to
have accepted such documents for filing or deposit on behalf
of the county clerk or the County Board within the 30-day
appeal period. 24
   Finally, counsel’s affidavit states that, at his direction, a
copy of the notice of appeal was mailed to the county clerk
on November 12, 2019, via regular U.S. mail and by certified
mail return receipt requested. But “[m]ailing on a certain date
23
     See In re App. No. C-4973 of Skrdlant, supra note 21.
24
     See id. (holding general averments in counsel’s affidavit did not establish
     that document was submitted to Public Service Commission for filing
     within statutory timeframe).
                                     - 681 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      313 Nebraska Reports
              PRESERVE THE SANDHILLS V. CHERRY COUNTY
                          Cite as 313 Neb. 668

does not establish possession by the recipient on that date,” 25
so evidence that the notice of appeal was mailed to the county
clerk on November 12 does not establish the date on which
it was in the county clerk’s possession for filing. Moreover,
the certified mail receipt that was attached to counsel’s affi-
davit was undated and was signed by someone other than the
county clerk, and counsel’s affidavit does not contain infor-
mation about the person who signed the certified mail receipt
or that person’s relationship, if any, to the county clerk.
   [10] It is the appellant’s burden to present a record estab-
lishing jurisdiction over the appeal, 26 and the show cause order
issued by this court specifically directed the appellants to
demonstrate compliance with the requirements of § 25-2729
and the procedure set out in Olmer and Kowalewski. Having
carefully reviewed and considered the appellate record and the
response to the order to show cause, we conclude the appel-
lants have failed to provide a record establishing strict compli-
ance with the jurisdictional requirements for perfecting a CUP
appeal under § 23-114.01(5), § 25-2729, and our decisions in
Olmer and Kowalewski. The record contains no file-stamped
notice of appeal that would support a presumption that a notice
of appeal was in the possession of the county clerk or the
County Board for filing within the 30-day appeal period, and
no other evidence establishes such possession. Nor does the
appellate record establish that the required district court docket
fee was deposited with the County Board or the county clerk
within 30 days of the CUP decision. As such, the appellants
have failed to show the CUP appeal was timely perfected in
the district court. The district court therefore never obtained
jurisdiction to review the CUP decision, and we similarly lack
jurisdiction over this appeal. 27
25
     Id. at 642, 942 N.W.2d at 201.
26
     See Clarke v. First Nat. Bank of Omaha, 296 Neb. 632, 895 N.W.2d 284
     (2017).
27
     See, Kowalewski, supra note 18; In re Estate of Koetter, supra note 5; In
     re Interest of Luz P. et al., supra note 5.
                                - 682 -
           Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                    313 Nebraska Reports
            PRESERVE THE SANDHILLS V. CHERRY COUNTY
                        Cite as 313 Neb. 668

                        CONCLUSION
   The record presented on appeal fails to establish that PTS
and Reiser-McCormick timely perfected their CUP appeal in
the district court. As such, we agree with the district court’s
conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction over the CUP appeal. We
affirm the judgment of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
                                                    Affirmed.
   Miller-Lerman, J., not participating.
   Stacy, J., concurring.
   I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the record pre-
sented in this appeal does not establish strict compliance with
the jurisdictional requirements for perfecting an appeal to the
district court under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 23-114.01(5) (Reissue
2022) and the procedure discussed by this court in In re
Application of Olmer (Olmer). 1 I write separately to suggest
that, given the practical limitations of the Olmer procedure,
those who choose to appeal a conditional use decision under
§ 23-114.01(5) and Olmer should consider taking affirmative
steps to document their timely compliance with the jurisdic-
tional requirements for perfecting such appeals.
   As the majority points out, when the Legislature created
the right to appeal conditional use decisions to the district
court under § 23-114.01(5), it did not enact a statutory pro-
cedure for perfecting such appeals. Consequently, the appeal
procedure this court articulated in Olmer was “drawn by
analogy” 2 from the statutory requirements in Neb. Rev. Stat.
§§ 25-1937 (Reissue 2016) and 25-2729(1) (Cum. Supp. 2022).
But the instant appeal, and our recent opinion in Kowalewski v.
Madison Cty. Bd. of Comrs., 3 illustrates that the Olmer proce-
dure has practical pitfalls of its own.
1
    In re Application of Olmer, 275 Neb. 852, 752 N.W.2d 124 (2008).
2
    Id. at 860, 752 N.W.2d at 130.
3
    Kowalewski v. Madison Cty. Bd. of Comrs., 310 Neb. 812, 969 N.W.2d
    392 (2022).
                                    - 683 -
            Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                     313 Nebraska Reports
             PRESERVE THE SANDHILLS V. CHERRY COUNTY
                         Cite as 313 Neb. 668

   Olmer approved of filing the notice of appeal with the
county clerk, and Kowalewski approved of depositing the
required docket fee with the county clerk. But the statutory
duties of county clerks
      are primarily focused on keeping the records of county
      board proceedings. These duties do not include or con-
      template accepting court fees or court filings. And . . .
      there is no statutory procedure authorizing or requiring a
      county clerk to transmit court filings or docket fees to the
      clerk of the district court. . . . [T]he reality is there is no
      case or statute requiring the county clerk to do anything
      with a notice of appeal, a court docket fee, or court costs.
      Under the judicial procedure we sanctioned in Olmer,
      appellants must rely on the good will of the county clerk
      to accept and file stamp their notice of appeal, accept
      their tendered docket fee, and timely transmit the same to
      the clerk of the district court. 4
   The Olmer procedure has been in place for nearly 15 years,
so it is reasonable to expect that most county clerks will be at
least familiar with the Olmer requirements for perfecting the
appeals authorized by § 23-114.01(5). But the instant appeal
highlights the danger of assuming that county clerks will reli-
ably perform all of the statutory duties required of clerks of the
county court.
   Clerks of the county court have “a clear statutory duty and
an established statutory procedure to follow when accept-
ing filings and deposits necessary to perfect an appeal to the
district court, as well as a commensurate statutory duty to
timely transmit the same to the clerk of the district court.” 5
But county clerks have no express statutory duty to perform
such tasks. 6
4
    Id. at 821-22, 969 N.W.2d at 398 (Stacy, J., concurring).
5
    Id. at 822-23, 969 N.W.2d at 398 (Stacy, J., concurring, citing Neb. Rev.
    Stat. §§ 25-2205 (Cum. Supp. 2018), 25-2214, and 25-2731 (Reissue
    2016)).
6
    See Kowalewski, supra note 3 (Stacy, J., concurring).
                                    - 684 -
            Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                     313 Nebraska Reports
             PRESERVE THE SANDHILLS V. CHERRY COUNTY
                         Cite as 313 Neb. 668

   This court has repeatedly suggested that this area of the law
deserves legislative attention. 7 But unless and until the exist-
ing statutory scheme is amended, those choosing to appeal a
CUP decision under § 23-114.01(5) and the Olmer procedure
would be wise to take affirmative steps to carefully document
their timely compliance with the jurisdictional requirements for
perfecting such an appeal, as well as to ensure the district court
record contains such documentation.
7
    See, Preserve the Sandhills v. Cherry County, 310 Neb. 184, 964 N.W.2d
    721 (2021); Champion v. Hall County, 309 Neb. 55, 958 N.W.2d 396
    (2021); Egan v. County of Lancaster, 308 Neb. 48, 952 N.W.2d 664
    (2020); Cargill Meat Solutions v. Colfax Cty. Bd. of Equal., 281 Neb. 93,
    798 N.W.2d 823 (2011); Olmer, supra note 1. Accord Kowalewski, supra
    note 3 (Cassel, J., concurring) (Stacy, J., concurring).