Opinion ID: 2120497
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Unreasonable and Arbitrary Classification

Text: Appellants also contend that the Legislature's decision to locate the state fair at Fonner Park in Grand Island was unreasonable and arbitrary. Appellants primarily rely on Cox v. State, [28] in which this court struck down a law that gave a tort victim a remedy against the state for injury to the victim that occurred on a state highway. Essentially, the statute in question in Cox waived sovereign immunity and the statute of limitations for one particular person. The court stated that such a law would require those similarly situated to petition the Legislature to make exceptions for each in turn. [29] Appellants contend that the same is true in this case and that the Legislature granted special favors to the State Fair Board, the HCLIA, and the University of Nebraska when it relocated the state fair to Fonner Park. First, we note that Cox involved the grant of a civil remedy to one person out of a class of many, for no reason other than the peculiar facts and circumstances of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. [30] In contrast, this case involves selecting a new permanent site for the state fair, which necessarily requires selecting one location. As we noted above, the Legislature may pass a specific law where a general law cannot be made applicable and where it has a reasonable basis to do so. Appellants argue that nothing in [LB 1116] describes any means for choosing a new fair site. The Legislature simply put a finger on the map and said this will be the place. [31] The record indicates that quite the opposite is true, however. The State Fair Board first recognized in 2003 that the state fair and its campus were in short- and long-term financial crises that would require action. Over the next 3 years, the Legislature authorized two studies to be conducted to find alternatives for the state fair, and public hearings were held on the findings. After LB 1116 was proposed, hearings and floor debates were held, giving interested parties opportunities to provide input on the potential location of the state fair. Nothing in the record indicates that the Legislature's decision to relocate the state fair, or its choice of location, was arbitrary or capricious. We therefore find appellants' first assignment of error to be without merit because they have not met their burden of showing that LB 1116 is unconstitutional special legislation.