Opinion ID: 1300217
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: constitutionality of regulatory scheme

Text: In the first assignment of error in its appeal, Nebraskaland questions the regulatory scheme imposed by §§ 75-301 through 75-322 and asks that these statutes regulating household good[s] carriers in Nebraska be declared unconstitutional. In the alternative, Nebraskaland asks that the court direct the commission to grant the certificate requested. Brief for appellant at 48. Provocative as the claim of constitutional infirmity may be, it must be remembered that Nebraskaland initiated this proceeding by filing an application pursuant to § 75-310, requesting that the commission issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity pursuant to § 75-311. The inconsistency in the positions taken by Nebraskaland in this assignment of error is precluded by the rule that a litigant who invokes the provisions of a statute may not challenge its validity nor seek the benefit of such statute and in the same action and at the same time question its constitutionality. State ex rel. Bellino v. Moore, 254 Neb. 385, 576 N.W.2d 793 (1998); State ex rel. Sileven v. Spire, 243 Neb. 451, 500 N.W.2d 179 (1993); In re Dissolution of School Dist. No. 22, 216 Neb. 89, 341 N.W.2d 918 (1983). Thus, Nebraskaland may not in this action challenge the constitutionality of §§ 75-301 through 75-322.