Court Opinion

ID: 9661099
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:29:15.835514+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:25.522618
License: Public Domain

Simmons, C. J.,
dissenting.
The youngsters involved in this litigation are in no wise responsible for the fact that they were born out of wedlock. Their problem is not new.
As the law has developed, that relates to their situation here, they have no actionable rights save as given by statute.
If this court had legislative powers I would not hesitate to vote for legislation granting children, bom as these were, the rights which the majority opinion accords, but we do not have that legislative power.
The rule of construction which the court follows here is expressed in as broad and general language as is the *602statute. In its application it also requires construction.
This is not a case of first impression here.
Beginning with Lind v. Burke, 56 Neb. 785, 77 N. W. 444, we stated the rule, in that case and in subsequent decisions we set out the guideposts, factually, that must appear to invoke the benefits of the statute. That rule and its application was followed in Moore v. Flack, 77 Neb. 52, 108 N. W. 143, wherein we recited that it was a “rule of strict construction of writings of this nature.” It was followed again in Van Hove v. Van Hove, 94 Neb. 575, 143 N. W. 815. See Van Hove v. Van Hove, 96 Neb. 484, 148 N. W. 152, for additional facts. Those decisions have not heretofore been overruled.
The acknowledgment shown in Thomas v. Estate of Thomas, 64 Neb. 581, 90 N. W. 630, clearly meets the test of the statute and the rule as theretofore applied.
In re Estate of Winslow, 115 Neb. 553, 213 N. W. 819, may be said to be at variance with our other decided cases. The majority point out correctly that this case was decided “without citation of earlier cases.” The earlier cases were cited to the court and were ignored. They were not overruled. The court then allowed the “earlier cases” to stand unmentioned. The Winslow decision is one of those rare ones where hard facts were allowed to control over the established construction of the statute.
Lind v. Burke, supra, was decided in 1898.
We have held: “An interpretation given to a statutory or constitutional provision by the court of last resort becomes a standard to be applied in all cases, and is binding upon all departments of government, including the Legislature.” Board of Educational Lands & Funds v. Gillett, 158 Neb. 558, 64 N. W. 2d 105.
In Patterson v. Kerr, 127 Neb. 73, 254 N. W. 704, we cited with approval this rule: “The doctrine of stare decisis applies with full force to decisions construing statutes, especially where they have been long acquiesced in.”
*603This statute as construed and applied has been acquiesced in by the Legislature these many years.
The construction, by application which we have placed on the statute, should not be disturbed except by legislative action.