Court Opinion

ID: 9672362
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:53:34.253776+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:15.602881
License: Public Domain

Clinton, J.,
responding to the dissents of Newton and McCown, JJ.
We accepted jurisdiction in this case under the constitutional provision giving us optional original- jurisdiction in cases “relating to the revenue” and because the .State is a party to the action. The State is a party and has an interest only because of the claim that the revenue is affected. The State attacks only the portion of the statute relating to revenue, i.e., costs, and it does so only on the basis of Article III, section 18, of the Constitution, relating to special laws and prohibiting “any special or exclusive privilege, immunity . . . whatever
It does not challenge the statute on the basis of denial ■of equal protection. The plaintiff’s standing is founded on the claim that the state revenue is affected and it neither presents nor argues equal protection issues. The parties defendant have no equal protection claims and are not affected by the issues discussed in the dissents. Specifically, the matters raised in the dissent of McCown, J., are not argued or discussed in the briefs of the parties. Those questions are not justiciable issues as no party, plaintiff or defendant, is affected by them.
While we have been liberal in determining the standing of the Attorney General to sue in the name of the State, we have never granted standing except where either the State or the defendants had a direct interest in and were affected by the issues raised. See, State ex rel. Sorensen v. State Board of Equalization & Assessment, 123 Neb. 259, 242 N. W. 609, 243 N. W. 264 (state revenue affected); State ex rel. Meyer v. Peters, 188 Neb. 817, 199 N. W. 2d 738 (state revenue, affected); *759State v. Pacific Express Co., 80 Neb. 823, 115 N. W. 619 (party defendant was directly affected by the issues and the Attorney General acted on behalf of the general public). These cases all are exceptions to the general rule that a litigant can question a statute’s unconstitutionality only when it is being applied to his disadvantage. Greene v. State, 83 Neb. 84, 119 N. W. 6; State ex rel. Ridgell v. Hall, 99 Neb. 89, 155 N. W. 228; State v. Brown, 191 Neb. 61, 213 N. W. 2d 712.
An opinion rendered on a matter where there is no controversy between interested parties is a mere advisory opinion. If we were to permit the Attorney General to raise general equal protection issues in cases where no party to the litigation is directly affected we place ourselves in the position of rendering an advisory opinion. This we have no power to do and ought not do.