Court Opinion

ID: 9598498
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:09:24.25106+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:41.791512
License: Public Domain

Gunderson, J.,
dissenting:
It is apparent that “the friendly litigation now before us has been concocted to obviate the danger that, at some later date, some interested party with interested counsel might persuade us that his constitutional rights were violated.” See State ex rel. Brennan v. Bowman, 89 Nev. 330, 336-337, 512 P.2d 1321, 1324 (1973) (concurring opinion, Gunderson, J.). As the United States Supreme Court said in Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346 (1911):
. . . The whole purpose ... is to determine the constitutional validity of this class of legislation, in a suit not arising between parties concerning a property right necessarily involved in the decision in question, but in a proceeding against the Government in its sovereign capacity, and concerning which the only judgment required is to settle the doubtful character of the legislation in question. Such judgment will not conclude private parties, when actual litigation brings to the court the question of the constitutionality of such legislation.
Id., at 361-362.
Accordingly, 1 adhere to the view that this court should discuss issues only when a bona fide case requires it, and not because attorneys may desire it.