Kimball v. Nebraska Dept. of Motor Vehicles
| Decision Date | 30 October 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. S-97-625,S-97-625 |
| Citation | 255 Neb. 430,586 N.W.2d 439 |
| Parties | Thomas C. KIMBALL, appellee, v. NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Administrative Law: Judgments: Final Orders: Appeal and Error. An aggrieved party may obtain review of any judgment or final order entered by a district court under the Administrative Procedure Act; the final order rendered by a district court may be reversed, vacated, or modified by an appellate court for errors appearing on the record.
2. Administrative Law: Final Orders: Appeal and Error. When reviewing a district court order under the Administrative Procedure Act for errors appearing on the record, the inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, is supported by competent 3. Judgments: Appeal and Error. Whether a decision conforms to law is by definition a question of law, in connection with which an appellate court has an obligation to reach its own conclusion independent of that reached by the inferior court.
evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable.
4. Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory language is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and a court will not resort to interpretation to ascertain the meaning of statutory words which are plain, direct, and unambiguous.
5. Statutes. A statute, rule, or regulation is open for construction only when the language used requires interpretation or may reasonably be considered ambiguous.
6. Evidence: Rules of Evidence: Words and Phrases. Evidence consists of facts admitted at a trial to establish or disprove the truth of allegations put in issue by the pleadings, whereas rules of evidence determine what facts are admissible or not.
7. Rules of Evidence: Words and Phrases. The rules of evidence are rules which determine whether or not the trial testimony, factual matters, and the information obtained through the use of the various discovery devices are admissible at the trial to prove or disprove the allegations of the petition.
8. Administrative Law: Statutes. Chapter 25 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes contains the rules of procedure for civil actions in the district and county courts, while chapter 84, article 9, of the Nebraska Revised Statutes contains the rules of procedure for administrative hearings; the two sections are mutually exclusive and are not to be applied in the same case.
9. Administrative Law: Rules of Evidence. Telephonic hearings are permitted in proceedings under the Administrative Procedure Act, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 84-901 et seq. (Reissue 1994 & Cum.Supp.1996), when a formal "rules of evidence" hearing is requested.
Don Stenberg, Attorney General, and Joseph P. Loudon, Lincoln, for appellant.
Russel L. Jones, of Clough, Dawson & Piccolo, North Platte, for appellee.
The Department of Motor Vehicles (Department) appeals from the judgment of the district court which reversed the order of the director of the Department revoking the operator's license of Thomas C. Kimball, the appellee. In this appeal, we must determine whether the Department may hold a telephonic hearing, as permitted by Neb.Rev.Stat. § 84-913.03 (Reissue 1994), when a formal "rules of evidence" hearing is requested by the driver.
Kimball was arrested on November 5, 1996, for driving under the influence of alcohol. His vehicle had been stopped after an Imperial, Nebraska, police officer saw Kimball driving slowly and without headlights down an Imperial street at 1:15 a.m. Kimball stopped the car and attempted to hide from the officer. The officer approached the vehicle and noted evidence of Kimball's intoxication, and the officer attempted to administer field sobriety tests.
Kimball was arrested after he attempted to flee from the officer. After his arrest, Kimball fought with both the arresting officer and the ambulance crew that the officer called to assist. Kimball was tested at a hospital following his arrest and was found to have a blood alcohol level of .227 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood.
On December 9, 1996, the Department mailed Kimball a notice of a telephonic hearing, to give him an opportunity to show why his operator's license should not be revoked pursuant to Nebraska's administrative license revocation statute, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 60-6,205 (Cum.Supp.1996). On December 17 The hearing was conducted telephonically on December 20, 1996. The bill of exceptions reflects that the hearing officer and Department counsel were in Lincoln, Kimball's counsel and the court reporter were in North Platte, and Kimball was in Imperial. At the outset of the hearing, Kimball objected to the hearing's being held telephonically in a hearing where the formal rules of evidence were to apply, claiming that Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-1243 (Reissue 1995) precluded a telephonic hearing where the formal rules of evidence were in effect. The Department argued in response that the formal rules of evidence did not include § 25-1243 because that law was found not in the Nebraska Evidence Rules, but in the Nebraska Code of Civil Procedure. The director of the Department considered testimony adduced at the December 20 hearing and issued a ruling on December 27, overruling Kimball's objection to the telephonic hearing and revoking Kimball's license for a period of 1 year.
the Department received a request from Kimball that the hearing be conducted under the formal rules of evidence, pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 84-914 (Reissue 1994). The Department approved the request on the same day.
Kimball timely appealed the director's decision to the district court. Kimball assigned several errors regarding the telephonic hearing and an alleged lack of foundation for several exhibits offered at the administrative hearing. Kimball's appeal was heard before the district court on March 31, 1997.
On May 1, 1997, the district court entered a judgment reversing the director's order of revocation. The court found that telephonic testimony at a formal rules of evidence hearing was improper under Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-1240 (Reissue 1995) and § 25-1243, that the hearing was therefore void, and that the resulting order was to be vacated. The Department appeals from the judgment of the district court.
The Department assigns that the district court erred in (1) reversing the Department's revocation of Kimball's operator's license and driving privileges and (2) finding that the Department may not hold hearings by telephone if the driver has requested that the rules of evidence apply to the hearing.
An aggrieved party may obtain review of any judgment or final order entered by a district court under the Administrative Procedure Act; the final order rendered by a district court may be reversed, vacated, or modified by an appellate court for errors appearing on the record. Vinci v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs., 253 Neb. 423, 571 N.W.2d 53 (1997); Piska v. Nebraska Dept. of Soc. Servs., 252 Neb. 589, 567 N.W.2d 544 (1997).
When reviewing a district court order under the Administrative Procedure Act for errors appearing on the record, the inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable. Id.
Whether a decision conforms to law is by definition a question of law, in connection with which an appellate court has an obligation to reach its own conclusion independent of that reached by the inferior court. McAllister v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs., 253 Neb. 910, 573 N.W.2d 143 (1998); Vinci v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs., supra.
The primary issue in this appeal is whether the Department may hold a telephonic hearing, as permitted by § 84-913.03, when a formal "rules of evidence" hearing is requested by the driver in an administrative license revocation proceeding. The Department argues that the term "rules of evidence" contained in § 84-914(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) does not encompass rules in chapter 25 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes. The Department argues further that even if the rules in chapter 25 are included in the formal "rules of evidence," chapter 25 still does not explicitly bar telephonic hearings. Kimball, on the other hand, claims that the rules contained in chapter 25, article 12, are included in the "rules of evidence" Before addressing the application of chapter 25, article 12, however, we must address the threshold question presented by this case: What is meant by the term "rules of evidence" as used in § 84-914(1)?
and that § 25-1243 requires the testimony of a witness be in the presence of a tribunal with the testimony being heard from the lips of the witness, thus barring telephonic hearings.
Section 84-913.03 provides, for administrative hearings, that
[t]he hearing officer may conduct all or part of the prehearing conference and the hearing by telephone, television, or other electronic means if each participant in the conference or hearing has an opportunity to participate in, to hear, and, if technically feasible, to see the entire proceeding while it is taking place.
Section 84-914(1) states, however, that
[a]ny party to a formal hearing before an agency, from which a decision may be appealed to the courts of this state, may request that the agency be bound by the rules of evidence applicable in district court by delivering to the agency at least three days prior to the holding of the hearing a written request therefor. Such request shall include the requesting party's agreement to be liable for the payment of costs incurred thereby and upon any appeal or review thereof, including the cost of court reporting services which the requesting party shall procure for the hearing. All costs of a formal hearing shall be paid by the party or p...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
A & D TECH. SUPPLY v. NEB. DEPT. OF REV.
...of any judgment or final order entered by a district court under the Administrative Procedure Act. Kimball v. Nebraska Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 255 Neb. 430, 586 N.W.2d 439 (1998); Vinci v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs., 253 Neb. 423, 571 N.W.2d 53 Proceedings for review of a final decisio......
-
State ex rel. Stenberg v. Moore
...construction when the language used requires interpretation or may reasonably be considered ambiguous. Kimball v. Nebraska Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 255 Neb. 430, 586 N.W.2d 439 (1998); State ex rel. City of Elkhorn v. Haney, 252 Neb. 788, 566 N.W.2d 771 The use of the term "match" in the st......
-
State v. Woods
...obligation to reach an independent conclusion irrespective of the decision made by the court below. See Kimball v. Nebraska Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 255 Neb. 430, 586 N.W.2d 439 (1998). ANALYSIS ERRORS NOT ASSIGNED IN PETITION FOR FURTHER We note, as a preliminary matter, that the State did......
-
LANCASTER CTY. SCH. DIST. v. Dept. of Labor
...177 (2000); A & D Tech. Supply Co. v. Nebraska Dept. of Revenue, 259 Neb. 24, 607 N.W.2d 857 (2000); Kimball v. Nebraska Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 255 Neb. 430, 586 N.W.2d 439 (1998); Vinci v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs., 253 Neb. 423, 571 N.W.2d 53 (1997). See Neb.Rev. Stat. § 48-640 (Re......
-
The Complicated World of the Electing Spouse: in Re Estate of Myers and Recent Statutory Developments
...when the language used requires interpretation or may reasonably be considered ambiguous." Kimball v. Nebraska Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 255 Neb. 430, 586 N.W.2d 439, 441 (1998) (syllabus 5). The "offset" issue in Myers, at least at first glance, appears as a relatively straight-forward inte......