Court Opinion

ID: 9732445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:21:12.869365+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:22:24.679661
License: Public Domain

Smith and McCown, JJ.,
dissenting.
Applicable statutes read: “The district courts shall have . . . appellate jurisdiction in all matters . . . , except where otherwise provided.” § 24-302, R. R. S. 1943. “Any person . . . aggrieved . . . may appeal ... to the district court of the county where the alleged events occurred for which he was arrested . . . .” § 39-727.11, R. R. S. 1943. The language may mean that venue is jurisdictional or that an appeal is only subject to a timely motion to transfer venue. Our choice should *817depend not only on degree of statutory ambiguity but also on historical background and present utility of jurisdictional venue.
In the second half of the 12th century the Curia Regis, an itinerant English court, caused great inconvenience. To attend trial, parties and witnesses often traveled long distances under adverse conditions. In 1215, the Magna Charta required trials concerning three real property writs to be local. It also declared: “Common pleas shall not follow our court,, but shall be held in some fixed place.” Blume, “Place of Trial in Civil Cases,” 48 Mich. L. Rev. 1 (1949); 1 Holdsworth, A History of English Law, 34 (3d Ed., 1922).
In the United States early courts were organized along colonial lines modified by demands for decentralization. “In a country of long distances in a time of slow communication and expensive travel, central courts . . . of first instance involved an intolerable expense. There was an understandable tendency to set up a local court of general jurisdiction at every man’s door.” Pound, Organization of Courts, 91 (1940).
In Nebraska venue-process provisions for original actions in district court generally have fallen under the rubric “jurisdictional venue.” See Coffman, “Jurisdiction or Venue?”, 20 Minn. L. Rev. 617 (1936). A Nebraska decision concerning justices of the peace led former Commissioner Pound in 1906 to compose “The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice.” Pound, supra, at p. 273. He spoke of problems nationwide: . . in two civil cases the question was whether the Circuit Court of Appeals was the proper tribunal .... All of this is sheer waste, which a modern judicial organization would obviate.” 29 A.B.A. Rep. 395 at 411 (1906).
He later wrote: “. . . the controlling reason for a systematic and scientific adjective law must be to insure precision, uniformity and certainty in the judicial application of substantive law . ; . . No appeal should be *818dismissed . . . solely because . . . taken to the wrong court or wrong venue, but if there is one where it may be . . . prosecuted, it should be transferred ... , all prior proceedings being saved.” Pound, “Some Principles of Procedural Reform,” 4 Ill. L. Rev. 388 and 491 at 497 (1910).
The statutes regulating plaintiff’s appeal are ambiguous enough to be free of this antiquated burden. We would reverse the judgment.
The court may “certify to the Legislature, its conclusions as to desirable amendments or changes in the general laws governing such practice and proceedings.” Art. V, § 25, Constitution of Nebraska. The majority opinion affirms the judgment without acknowledging the utter worthlessness of jurisdictional venue in practice. We hope that the lack of acknowledgment is not approval.