Summary
The Supreme Court of Nebraska dismissed Benjamin D. Rose’s petition for further review as untimely. Although Rose tendered the petition within 30 days of the Nebraska Court of Appeals’ decision, he did not pay the required $50 docket fee until two days after the filing deadline. The court held that timely payment of the docket fee was mandatory and jurisdictional.
Holdings
- Payment of the $50 docket fee required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 33-103 and Nebraska Court Rule of Practice 2F(1) is mandatory and jurisdictional; a petition tendered without the fee is not properly filed.
- Rose's petition for further review was untimely because the petition was not accompanied by the required docket fee until August 24, after the August 22 deadline.
Questions Presented
- Whether a petition for further review is properly filed when tendered within 30 days but without the statutorily required docket fee.
- Whether Rose's August 24 petition for further review was timely after the initial August 22 submission lacked the required docket fee.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (6)
- Ackerman v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Appeals Bd., 256 Neb. 896, 593 N.W.2d 728 (1999)(followed)
- Martin v. McGinn, 267 Neb. 931, 678 N.W.2d 737 (2004)(followed)
- State v. Parmar, 255 Neb. 356, 586 N.W.2d 279 (1998)(followed)
- In re Interest of Noelle F. & Sarah F., 249 Neb. 628, 544 N.W.2d 509 (1996)(followed)
- American Legion Post No. 90 v. Nebraska Liquor Control Commission, 199 Neb. 429, 259 N.W.2d 36 (1977)(followed)
- In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Woltemath, 268 Neb. 33, 680 N.W.2d 142 (2004)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…