Skyline Ranches Prop. Owners Assn. v. City of Omaha

- 103 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
SKYLINE RANCHES PROP. OWNERS ASSN. v. CITY OF OMAHA
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 103
Skyline Ranches Property Owners Association
et al., appellants, v. City of Omaha,
Nebraska, et al., appellees.
___ N.W.3d ___
Filed February 24, 2026. 	No. A-25-247.
1. Mandamus: Words and Phrases. Mandamus is a law action, and it is
an extraordinary remedy, not a writ of right.
2. Judgments: Appeal and Error. In a bench trial of a law action, the trial
court’s factual findings have the effect of a jury verdict, and an appellate
court will not disturb those findings unless they are clearly erroneous.
3. Mandamus. Whether to grant a writ of mandamus is within the trial
court’s discretion.
4. Judgments: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews questions of
law independently of the lower court’s conclusion.
5. Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory interpretation is a question of
law that an appellate court resolves independently of the trial court.
6. Jurisdiction. A jurisdictional issue that does not involve a factual dis-
pute presents a question of law.
7. Mandamus: Proof. Mandamus relief is available if the movant can
show (1) a clear right to the relief sought, (2) a corresponding clear duty
to perform the act requested, and (3) no other plain and adequate remedy
is available in the ordinary course of law.
8. ____: ____. In a mandamus action, the party seeking mandamus has the
burden of proof and must show clearly and conclusively that such party
is entitled to the particular thing the relator asks and that the respondent
is legally obligated to act.
9. Mandamus: Public Officers and Employees. Mandamus is available
to enforce the performance of ministerial duties of a public official but
is not available if the duties are quasi-judicial or discretionary.
10. ____: ____. A duty imposed by law which may be enforced by writ of
mandamus must be one which the law specifically enjoins as a duty
resulting from an office, trust, or station.
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
10/18/2026 12:40 AM CDT

- 104 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
SKYLINE RANCHES PROP. OWNERS ASSN. v. CITY OF OMAHA
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 103
11. Mandamus. The general rule is that an act or duty is ministerial only
if there is an absolute duty to perform in a specified manner upon the
existence of certain facts.
12. ____. A duty or act is ministerial when there is no room for the exercise
of discretion, official or otherwise, the performance being required by
direct and positive command of the law.
13. Public Officers and Employees. A ministerial duty is not dependent
upon a public officer’s judgment or discretion—it is performed under
the conditions specified in obedience to the mandate of legal authority,
without regard for the exercise of the officer’s judgment upon the pro-
priety of the act being done.
14. Statutes. To the extent there is a conflict between two statutes, the spe-
cific statute controls over the general statute.
15. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. 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.
16. Jurisdiction: Time: Notice: Appeal and Error. Under Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 25-1912 (Cum. Supp. 2024), to vest an appellate court with jurisdic-
tion, a party must timely file a notice of appeal.
Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: Jeffrey
J. Lux, Judge. Affirmed.
Jason M. Bruno and Guillermo M. Martinez, of Sherrets
Bruno & Vogt, L.L.C., for appellants.
Ryan J. Wiesen, Deputy Omaha City Attorney, for appellees.
Moore, Bishop, and Welch, Judges.
Moore, Judge.
INTRODUCTION
Skyline 	Ranches 	Property 	Owners Association 	(Skyline
Ranches), Robert F. Peterson, and Edward Wilkinson (collec-
tively referred to as “appellants”) appeal from an order of the
district court for Douglas County, denying their request for a
peremptory writ of mandamus that sought to compel the City
of Omaha, Nebraska; Robert G. Stubbe, in his official capac-
ity; and Jean Stothert, in her official capacity (collectively

- 105 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
SKYLINE RANCHES PROP. OWNERS ASSN. v. CITY OF OMAHA
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 103
referred to as “appellees”), to properly maintain the streets
of an annexed subdivision. For the reasons set forth herein,
we affirm.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Skyline Ranches is a subdivision of western Omaha, con-
taining 228 residential properties. Originally created to be a
sanitary and improvement district, Skyline Ranches’ paved
streets were installed in 1975, subject to the jurisdiction and
oversight of Douglas County. In 1994, Elkhorn, Nebraska,
annexed Skyline Ranches. In 2005, Omaha annexed Elkhorn,
which included Skyline Ranches. This case arises out of appel-
lants’ claim that since the annexation, appellees have failed to
properly maintain Skyline Ranches’ streets.
On May 7, 2024, appellants filed a complaint, alleging
that appellees had allowed Skyline Ranches’ streets to fall
into various levels of disrepair. The complaint alleged that
the conditions of the streets presented dangers and hazards
to the traveling public. The complaint also alleged that in
December 2018, Omaha adopted a policy for maintenance of
roadways that declared “substandard” streets those that were
not installed pursuant to Omaha’s current standards. The com-
plaint stated that appellees allegedly claimed that they have no
duty to maintain Skyline Ranches’ streets because those streets
were now “‘substandard,’” and appellees planned to allow
the streets “to deteriorate to gravel and ultimately to dirt.”
Appellants alleged that they had repeatedly requested that
appellees maintain the streets of Skyline Ranches, but appel-
lants had been informed that they must “apply to Omaha” to
make major improvements to the streets and pay the costs for
those improvements pursuant to Omaha’s 2018 policy.
The complaint further alleged that appellees’ represen-
tations were arbitrary and contrary to law and that appel-
lees had undertaken the duty to maintain Skyline Ranches’
streets at the moment of annexation pursuant to Neb. Rev.
Stat. § 14-118(2) (Reissue 2022). The complaint requested a

- 106 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
SKYLINE RANCHES PROP. OWNERS ASSN. v. CITY OF OMAHA
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 103
declaratory judgment that affirmed that appellees have a duty
to maintain the streets in a safe condition suitable for ordinary
travel and to invalidate Omaha’s 2018 policy. The complaint
also requested a writ of mandamus compelling appellees to
maintain the streets in a reasonably safe condition for ordi-
nary travel.
Appellees later filed an answer, and appellants filed a motion
to compel discovery.
On November 8, 2024, the district court entered an order
dismissing appellants’ complaint without prejudice. The court
first found that appellants had failed to properly file their
mandamus claim, as it was not included in a verified peti-
tion or an affidavit, thus depriving the court of subject mat-
ter jurisdiction. Relying upon the Nebraska Supreme Court’s
directive that strict compliance with the mandamus statutes
be followed, the court further found that an amended com-
plaint would not cure the procedural defects in the manda-
mus claim.
The district court also found that the declaratory judg-
ment claim should be dismissed. The court noted that a
declaratory judgment affirming that appellees have a duty
to maintain Skyline Ranches’ streets would be only the first
step to obtaining the relief sought and would be unlikely to
terminate or resolve the controversy between the parties.
The court found that although appellants had not followed
the proper procedure for filing a writ of mandamus, a writ
of mandamus was the most serviceable remedy for the relief
sought. In reaching this conclusion, the court relied upon
State ex rel. Wagner v. Evnen, 307 Neb. 142, 948 N.W.2d 244
(2020), which held that a court’s ability to grant declaratory
judgment is limited when another equally serviceable remedy
is available. The court also dismissed all pending motions,
including appellants’ motion to compel and other motions not
included in our record on appeal. Appellants did not appeal
that order.

- 107 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
SKYLINE RANCHES PROP. OWNERS ASSN. v. CITY OF OMAHA
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 103
On December 16, 2024, appellants filed a verified motion
for the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandamus. The alle-
gations contained in the verified motion are largely the same
as those set forth in appellants’ original complaint. However,
the verified motion also contained photographs of Skyline
Ranches’ streets and additional details regarding their state of
disrepair, including that the streets were uneven and contained
large potholes. The verified motion requested a peremptory
writ of mandamus compelling appellees to maintain the streets
in a reasonably safe condition for ordinary travel. The district
court entered an order allowing an alternative writ of manda-
mus on January 10, 2025, which directed appellees to carry
out their obligations under § 14-118. Appellees later filed
an answer.
A show cause hearing on the matter was held on February
20, 2025. At the hearing, appellants offered their verified
motion and the affidavits of two of their residents and a
former city administrator for Elkhorn. Appellees offered affi-
davits by Omaha’s city clerk and the general services divi-
sion manager for Omaha’s public works department. All
exhibits were entered into evidence, and both parties pre-
sented arguments.
In an order entered on March 20, 2025, the district court
denied appellants’ verified motion for a peremptory writ of
mandamus. The court concluded that several statutes, other
than § 14-118, indicated that appellees did not have a manda-
tory duty to maintain the streets in Skyline Ranches. The court
also concluded that there was a statutory petition process,
which had been adopted by Omaha, that provided appellants
with an avenue through which they could obtain the relief
sought. The court noted that there was no evidence that appel-
lants had relied upon the petition process before commencing
legal action. Thus, appellants had failed to meet two of the
three necessary elements for a writ of mandamus. The court
further ordered that the alternative writ of mandamus be dis-
solved by operation of law.

- 108 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
SKYLINE RANCHES PROP. OWNERS ASSN. v. CITY OF OMAHA
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 103
Appellants subsequently perfected their appeal to this court.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Appellants assign, restated and consolidated, that the dis-
trict court erred in (1) failing to issue a peremptory writ of
mandamus and (2) dismissing their request for a declara-
tory judgment.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[1-4] Mandamus is a law action, and it is an extraordinary
remedy, not a writ of right. State ex rel. BH Media Group v.
Frakes, 305 Neb. 780, 943 N.W.2d 231 (2020). In a bench trial
of a law action, the trial court’s factual findings have the effect
of a jury verdict, and an appellate court will not disturb those
findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Id. Whether to
grant a writ of mandamus is within the trial court’s discretion.
Id. An appellate court reviews questions of law independently
of the lower court’s conclusion. In re Estate of Guenther, 318
Neb. 454, 16 N.W.3d 876 (2025).
[5] Statutory interpretation is a question of law that an
appellate court resolves independently of the trial court. State
ex rel. BH Media Group v. Frakes, supra.
[6] A jurisdictional issue that does not involve a factual dis-
pute presents a question of law. Kellogg v. Mathiesen, 320 Neb.
223, 26 N.W.3d 651 (2025).
ANALYSIS
Writ of Mandamus
Appellants first assign that the district court erred in failing
to issue a peremptory writ of mandamus.
[7,8] Mandamus relief is available if the movant can show
(1) a clear right to the relief sought, (2) a corresponding clear
duty to perform the act requested, and (3) no other plain and
adequate remedy is available in the ordinary course of law.
State ex rel. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. No. 66 v. Ewing, 319 Neb.
663, 24 N.W.3d 861 (2025). In a mandamus action, the party

- 109 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
SKYLINE RANCHES PROP. OWNERS ASSN. v. CITY OF OMAHA
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 103
seeking mandamus has the burden of proof and must show
clearly and conclusively that such party is entitled to the par-
ticular thing the relator asks and that the respondent is legally
obligated to act. Id.
[9-13] Mandamus is available to enforce the performance of
ministerial duties of a public official but is not available if the
duties are quasi-judicial or discretionary. Id. A duty imposed
by law which may be enforced by writ of mandamus must be
one which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from
an office, trust, or station. Id. The general rule is that an act
or duty is ministerial only if there is an absolute duty to per-
form in a specified manner upon the existence of certain facts.
Id. A duty or act is ministerial when there is no room for the
exercise of discretion, official or otherwise, the performance
being required by direct and positive command of the law.
Id. A ministerial duty is not dependent upon a public officer’s
judgment or discretion—it is performed under the conditions
specified in obedience to the mandate of legal authority, with-
out regard for the exercise of the officer’s judgment upon the
propriety of the act being done. Id.
Our case law has recognized that a city has a general
duty to maintain its streets in a reasonably safe condition.
See Dean v. Yahnke, 266 Neb. 820, 670 N.W.2d 28 (2003)
(holding that no municipal corporation, by any act of its
own, can devolve duty of keeping its streets and sidewalks
in reasonably safe condition for travel by public). See, also,
Ruth v. City of Omaha, 82 Neb. 846, 118 N.W. 1084 (1908)
(recognizing city has duty to exercise its powers to construct
reasonably safe streets for accommodation of public); Conklin
v. Lincoln Traction Co., 130 Neb. 28, 263 N.W. 674 (1935)
(city has duty to maintain streets and sidewalks in reasonably
safe condition for travel in ordinary mode); Tewksbury v. City
of Lincoln, 84 Neb. 571, 121 N.W. 994 (1909) (duty of cities
to keep and maintain streets in repair and safe for public use).
We note that none of these cases discuss the duty to maintain
public streets in connection with a ministerial act subject to a

- 110 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
SKYLINE RANCHES PROP. OWNERS ASSN. v. CITY OF OMAHA
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 103
writ of mandamus. The question before us then is whether this
duty to maintain public streets is ministerial or discretionary
in nature.
Appellants argue that from the moment Elkhorn was annexed
by Omaha, appellees undertook the duty to maintain Skyline
Ranches’ streets pursuant to the plain language of § 14-118(2).
Section 14-118(2) states:
After such date [of annexation], the city of the metropoli-
tan class shall:
(a) Succeed to all the property and property rights of
every kind, contracts, obligations, and choses in action
of every kind held by or belonging to the annexed or
merged city or village; and
(b) Be liable for and recognize, assume, and carry
out all valid contracts, obligations, and licenses of the
annexed or merged city or village.
Appellants contend that the “obligations” Omaha assumed
from Elkhorn during annexation included the maintenance of
safe and functional streets.
As the district court noted in its order, case law applying
§ 14-118 is limited. In City of Omaha v. City of Elkhorn, 276
Neb. 70, 752 N.W.2d 137 (2008), the Nebraska Supreme Court
considered Omaha’s claim that multiple severance provisions
in certain Elkhorn employee contracts were invalid and unen-
forceable. Although the issue in that case largely concerned
whether Omaha had standing, the Nebraska Supreme Court
concluded, pursuant to § 14-118 (Reissue 1997), that Omaha
“succeeded to and became liable for the severance provisions
on . . . the date Omaha’s annexation ordinance became effec-
tive.” City of Omaha v. City of Elkhorn, 276 Neb. at 78, 752
N.W.2d at 144.
In S.I.D. No. 95 v. City of Omaha, 221 Neb. 272, 376
N.W.2d 767 (1985), a sanitary and improvement district (SID)
requested 	a 	permanent 	injunction 	enjoining 	Omaha 	from
enforcing an ordinance annexing an area served by the district.
The SID argued that Omaha had annexed the area solely for

- 111 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
SKYLINE RANCHES PROP. OWNERS ASSN. v. CITY OF OMAHA
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 103
the purposes of generating revenues. The Nebraska Supreme
Court rejected this argument, finding that under § 14-118
(Reissue 1983), Omaha had assumed the obligation for all of
the SID’s liabilities. The court also noted that because Omaha
was “acquiring a fully developed area, and therefore, in addi-
tion to paying off any and all bond obligations of the area, it
further assumed the responsibility of providing all necessary
improvements and services.” S.I.D. No. 95 v. City of Omaha,
221 Neb. at 278-79, 376 N.W.2d at 772.
In Airport Authority of City of Millard v. City of Omaha,
185 Neb. 623, 177 N.W.2d 603 (1970), the Nebraska Supreme
Court considered whether Omaha’s annexation of Millard,
Nebraska, 	impaired 	the 	obligations 	and 	contracts 	of 	the
Millard airport authority. The court found that annexation did
not impair contracts entered into by the Millard airport author-
ity because Omaha incurred the obligations to carry out the
contracts by virtue of annexation.
The above cases demonstrate that § 14-118 has been
applied to contractual obligations assumed by Omaha through
annexation. Though S.I.D. No. 95 v. City of Omaha, 221
Neb. at 279, 376 N.W.2d at 772, stated that Omaha had
also assumed the responsibility of providing “all necessary
improvements and services” by the nature of its annexation,
the Nebraska Supreme Court did not detail what specific
improvements and services are necessary or whether the duty
to provide necessary improvements and services is ministerial
or discretionary.
Appellees argue that a series of statutes governing the
improvement of streets and roadways in cities of the met-
ropolitan class articulate a legislative intent to provide the
executive and legislative branches of municipal government
with discretion when making improvements to streets, side-
walks, and highways, as well as the discretion to specially
assess property owners for all or part of the costs incurred
for 	such 	improvements. 	See 	Neb. 	Rev. 	Stat. 	§§ 	14-384
through 14-3,127 (Reissue 2022). Specifically, § 14-385(2)

- 112 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
SKYLINE RANCHES PROP. OWNERS ASSN. v. CITY OF OMAHA
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 103
states, “The city shall not be required to make any of the
improvements authorized in this section if for good reason
the city deems such improvements should not be made even
though such improvements were petitioned for as provided in
section 14-390.”
Appellees also point to Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-901 through
13-928 	(Reissue 	2022), 	which 	comprise 	the 	Political
Subdivisions Tort Claims Act. Section 13-910(12) excepts
political subdivisions from liability for
[a]ny claim arising out of the alleged insufficiency or
want of repair of any highway as defined in such sec-
tion, bridge, or other public thoroughfare. Insufficiency
or want of repair shall be construed to refer to the general
or overall condition and shall not refer to a spot or local-
ized defect.
Appellees contend that their duty to maintain the streets of
Skyline Ranches is discretionary because sovereign immunity
protects Omaha from any claim arising out of the alleged gen-
eral disrepair of a public street.
[14] Although § 14-118 (Reissue 2022) indicates that cities
incur obligations through annexation, we cannot conclude that
the use of the word “obligation” includes an absolute duty to
perform street maintenance in a specified manner for which
mandamus is an appropriate remedy. Neither a plain reading
of the statute, nor case law interpreting § 14-118, connects
the obligations referenced in the statute to any specific duty to
maintain public streets. Rather, other statutes enacted by the
Legislature specifically address the improvement of streets. To
the extent there is a conflict between two statutes, the specific
statute controls over the general statute. In re Guardianship of
Patrick W., 316 Neb. 381, 4 N.W.3d 833 (2024). We therefore
find the statutes cited by appellees, specifically §§ 14-384
through 14-3,127, to be controlling.
The statutes regarding the process through which cities
of a metropolitan class can improve streets, sidewalks, and
highways suggest that a city’s duty regarding public streets is

- 113 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
SKYLINE RANCHES PROP. OWNERS ASSN. v. CITY OF OMAHA
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 103
discretionary. For instance, the phrase “shall not be required to
make . . . improvements,” which is contained in § 14-385(2),
suggests that the Legislature intended for street improvements
to fall within a city’s discretion. Section 14-385(2) also states
that a city is not required to make improvements if it has good
reason, “even though such improvements were petitioned for
[under] section 14-390,” further evidencing a city’s discre-
tion over street maintenance. The Political Subdivisions Tort
Claims Act also suggests that the maintenance of public streets
is not ministerial, as the act excepts political subdivisions from
liability for claims arising out of the general poor conditions
of streets. We conclude that appellants have failed to show that
appellees’ duty to maintain the streets in Skyline Ranches was
ministerial and not discretionary.
Appellants also argue that they do not have a plain and
adequate remedy at law. Though the district court went on to
find that a peremptory writ of mandamus was unwarranted
given the existence of plain and adequate remedies, because
we have found above that appellees have no clear duty to per-
form the act requested to support mandamus relief, we do not
address this argument further. An appellate court is not obli-
gated to engage in analysis that is not necessary to adjudicate
case and controversy before it. See Slater v. Ichtertz, 320 Neb.
159, 26 N.W.3d 504 (2025).
Because appellants have failed to show that the mainte-
nance of their streets is a ministerial duty of appellees, man-
damus relief is not available. The district court did not err in
so deciding.
Declaratory Judgment
Appellants also assign that the district court erred by dis-
missing their request for a declaratory judgment. In their
initial complaint, appellants requested relief through both a
declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus. Appellants
argue that if the issuance of a writ of mandamus is not war-
ranted, then the district court’s dismissal of the declaratory

- 114 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
SKYLINE RANCHES PROP. OWNERS ASSN. v. CITY OF OMAHA
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 103
judgment action was in error. Appellees argue that because
appellants are challenging the substance of the district court’s
dismissal of appellants’ original complaint, their appeal is well
past the 30-day deadline. Therefore, this court is without juris-
diction to review this assignment of error.
[15,16] 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. Kellogg v. Mathiesen,
320 Neb. 223, 26 N.W.3d 651 (2025). Under Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 25-1912 (Cum. Supp. 2024), to vest an appellate court with
jurisdiction, a party must timely file a notice of appeal. See
Arnold v. Walz, 306 Neb. 179, 944 N.W.2d 747 (2020). A party
must file a notice of appeal within 30 days of the judgment,
decree, or final order from which the party is appealing. Id.
See, also, Saint James Apt. Partners v. Universal Surety Co.,
316 Neb. 419, 5 N.W.3d 179 (2024) (finding that dismissal
without prejudice is typically final order except for instances
in which court grants leave to amend).
Appellants’ notice of appeal states that they intended to
appeal from an order entered by the district court on March 20,
2025. That order addressed appellants’ verified motion, which
sole claim was a request for a peremptory writ of mandamus.
As such, the court’s March 20 order did not address appel-
lants’ prior request for a declaratory judgment. The court had
previously dismissed appellants’ complaint, which contained
their request for a declaratory judgment, without prejudice in
its order entered on November 8, 2024. In order to preserve
this assignment of error for appeal, it was necessary for appel-
lants to file a notice of appeal within 30 days of the court’s
November 8 order. See Arnold v. Walz, supra.
Because appellants appealed only from the district court’s
March 20, 2025, order, which did not involve appellants’ prior
request for a declaratory judgment, this court is without juris-
diction to consider this assignment of error, and we do not
discuss it further.

- 115 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
SKYLINE RANCHES PROP. OWNERS ASSN. v. CITY OF OMAHA
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 103
CONCLUSION
Appellants have failed to show that the maintenance of
Skyline Ranches’ streets is a ministerial duty of appellees.
The district court did not err in dismissing appellants’ veri-
fied motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus. We are with-
out appellate jurisdiction to consider the district court’s prior
denial of the request for a declaratory judgment.
Affirmed.