Forgey v. Nebraska Dept. of Motor Vehicles, supra. In Thomsen v. Nebraska Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 16 Neb.App. 44, 741 N.W.2d 682 (2007), we similarly concluded that the time limitation in § 60–498.01(3) (Reissue 2004) was also directory.

For the sake of a thorough discussion, we know this court recently held that the 10-day time limitation set out in § 60-498.01(2) and (3) is directory and not mandatory and that the failure to strictly abide by the 10-day time limit does not invalidate license revocation proceedings or take away the jurisdiction of the Department. See, Thomsen v. Nebraska Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 16 Neb. App. 44, 741 N.W.2d 682 (2007); Forgey v. Nebraska Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 15 Neb. App. 191, 724 N.W.2d 828 (2006). In Forgey, we held that the language in § 60-498.

See, State v. $1,947, 255 Neb. 290, 583 N.W.2d 611 (1998) ; In re Interest of Brandy M. et al., 250 Neb. 510, 550 N.W.2d 17 (1996) ; In re Interest of C.P., 235 Neb. 276, 455 N.W.2d 138 (1990) ; State v. Steele, supra note 11; In re Interest of S.S.L., 219 Neb. 911, 367 N.W.2d 710 (1985) ; Hartman v. Glenwood Tel. Membership Corp., 197 Neb. 359, 249 N.W.2d 468 (1977) ; Local Union No. 647 v. City of Grand Island, 196 Neb. 693, 244 N.W.2d 515 (1976). See, also, Glantz v. Daniel, 21 Neb.App. 89, 837 N.W.2d 563 (2013) ; Hendrix v. Sivick, 19 Neb.App. 140, 803 N.W.2d 525 (2011) ; Thomsen v. Nebraska Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 16 Neb.App. 44, 741 N.W.2d 682 (2007) ; Forgey v. Nebraska Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 15 Neb.App. 191, 724 N.W.2d 828 (2006) ; Randall v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 10 Neb.App. 469, 632 N.W.2d 799 (2001).State on behalf of Minter v. Jensen, 259 Neb. 275, 609 N.W.2d 362 (2000).

When reviewing an order of a district court 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. Thomsen v. Nebraska Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 16 Neb. App. 44, 741 N.W.2d 682 (2007). Whether the sworn report of a law enforcement officer is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the DMV is a question of law, and an appellate court reaches a conclusion independent of that reached by the lower court. Johnson v. Neth, 276 Neb. 886, 758 N.W.2d 395 (2008); Moyer v. Nebraska Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 275 Neb. 688, 747 N.W.2d 924 (2008).

This court has held that the 10-day time limit set forth in § 60-498.01(3) is directory rather than mandatory. Thomsen v. Nebraska Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 16 Neb. App. 44, 741 N.W.2d 682 (2007). We also note that, unlike Stoetzel, where the amended report was not "sworn" because it was not renotarized, both the original sworn report and the addendum thereto were properly notarized in this case.