Court Opinion

ID: 9574836
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:08:50.197245+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:44.698440
License: Public Domain

Hannon, Judge,
concurring in part, and in part dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent from that portion of the opinion which holds that Dollison is not entitled to a jury trial. Article I, § 6, of the Constitution of the State of Nebraska provides in significant part: ‘The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate ...” I agree that the Legislature may and does provide procedures whereby litigants may waive this constitutional right. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2705 (Reissue 1995), requiring a demand for a jury trial before answer day, is the clearest example. The statutes do not provide that by commencing an action in small claims court the plaintiff waives his or her right to trial by jury, but, rather, provide: “All matters in the Small Claims Court shall be tried to the court without a jury.” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2805 (Reissue 1995).
This case was transferred out of the small claims court by the defendant, and therefore, it was not tried in the small claims court. I am inclined to think the Legislature could provide that by filing an action in small claims court the plaintiff waives the right to trial by jury. Instead, the Legislature saw fit to provide only that trials in small claims court shall be without a jury. I also recognize that the existing statutes do not provide a time limit for a plaintiff to request a jury trial after a defendant has caused a case to be transferred out of small claims court. However, I refuse to believe that a constitutional right can be lost inadvertently merely because a statute could have been drafted to provide for the waiver of that right. In the absence of a statutory limitation, I think the plaintiff would have a reasonable time to demand a trial by jury.