Court Opinion

ID: 9722320
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:25:00.798137+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:33.965448
License: Public Domain

White, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent. The court continues a procedural trap, which has no basis in logic, but is designed merely to penalize the unwary. In all appeals from administrative agencies, if the method of appeal is at all mentioned or described, an exhaustive search must be undertaken to determine in what legislative session the language describing the method of appeal was first adopted. Then a search of statutes, many long since repealed and replaced, must be had to determine, as in this case, what was the procedure of appeal from justice of the peace courts (now long since abolished) in that same year. A current set of our statutes will not be sufficient for the lawyer attempting to find the correct procedure, and the District Courts of this state, which were under the impression that as a result of careful study and legislation that appeal procedures were uniform, are confounded. I would overrule Shull v. Barton, 58 Neb. 741, 79 N.W. 732 (1899), and its *771questionable descendents, out of hand.
Krivosha, C.J., joins in this dissent.