Opinion ID: 2226536
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: whether constitutionality of statutes was properly raised

Text: Before reaching the NEOC's separation of powers argument, we must first address the appellees' claim that the NEOC did not properly raise the constitutional issue at the district court level. Except in the most unusual cases, for a question of constitutionality to be considered on appeal, it must have been properly raised in the trial court. If not so raised, it will be considered to have been waived. See, State v. Huebner, 245 Neb. 341, 513 N.W.2d 284 (1994); In re Estate of Snyder, 217 Neb. 356, 348 N.W.2d 136 (1984). The NEOC does not argue that it raised the separation of powers issue in the district court. However, the NEOC argues that it did not have an opportunity to raise the issue in the district court because of the nature of peremptory writs of mandamus. A discussion of the types of mandamus writs will be helpful to understand this argument. Two types of writs of mandamus are recognized and defined: (1) alternative writs and (2) peremptory writs. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-2158 (Reissue 1995). The basic difference between these two types of writs is that alternative writs require the defendant be given an opportunity to show cause why he [or she] has not done as commanded, whereas peremptory writs are generally issued in an ex parte fashion and do not require notice or that the defendant be given an opportunity to show cause why he [or she] has not done as commanded. § 25-2158. See Neb. Rev.Stat. § 25-2160 (Reissue 1995). When the right to require the performance of the act is clear and it is apparent that no valid excuse can be given for not performing it, a peremptory mandamus may be allowed in the first instance. In all other cases, the alternative writ must be first issued.... Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-2159 (Reissue 1995). In the instant case, the district court, as permitted by statute, issued the peremptory writs without first issuing alternative writs. Furthermore, the court issued the peremptory writs in an ex parte fashion without providing the NEOC notice or an opportunity to show cause why the writs should not be issued. Moreover, no other pleadings or written allegations are allowed by law. See Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-2164 (Reissue 1995). Thus, the NEOC correctly asserts that it did not have an opportunity to raise the separation of powers argument at the district court level. We determine that a defendant must be given an opportunity to raise nonfrivolous, constitutional challenges to the issuance of peremptory writs of mandamus. Our standard when reviewing the alleged unconstitutionality of a statute is that it presents a question of law that must be determined independently from the conclusion reached by the trial court. Jones v. State, 248 Neb. 158, 532 N.W.2d 636 (1995). As a result, we conclude that this case need not be remanded to the district court, because it is one of those most unusual cases in which a question of constitutionality has not been waived and will be considered on appeal although it was not raised in the district court. See, In re Estate of Snyder, supra ; State v. Huebner, supra .