Court Opinion

ID: 9669383
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:54:34.610766+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:56.143934
License: Public Domain

Souris, J.
(concurring). While I concur in that portion of Mr. Justice Black’s opinion which relates directly to the appeals before this Court, I cannot subscribe to the forepart of his opinion, which he calls a preface, for the reason that I am not prepared, absent a testimonial record made in an adversary proceeding, to consider the issue discussed by Justice Black in that preface.
Nor do I join in any hint to the legislature that the eminent domain proceedings described in the report of Fulmer v. State Department of Roads (1964), 178 Neb 20 (131 NW2d 657), to which Justice Black makes reference in a footnote, would be an appropriate answer to the problems disclosed by the record of these cases of O’Brien and Froberg. I note, in passing, that even the Nebraska supreme court, construing the pertinent Nebraska statute, was not in agreement whether its constitutional validity depended upon an exercise of the police power or of the power of eminent domain.
*559Subject to the foregoing, I concur in Justice Black’s affirmance of the O’Brien judgment and Ms reversal of tbe Proberg judgment, without costs to any party.
T. M. Kavanagh, C. J., and Dethmers, Kelly, Smith, and Adams, JJ., concurred with Souris, J.
O’Hara, J., did not sit.