Court Opinion

ID: 9700741
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:47:40.132209+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:14.234928
License: Public Domain

Caporale, J.,
concurring.
Whatever else might be said about the dissents, it seems to me that in attempting to illustrate that the petition we are reviewing is adequate, the second dissent only succeeds in making clearer that the petition fails. While the alleged educational ills in Lancaster County School District 161 are tied by the petition to the method by which education is financed, the claimed constitutional infirmity rests not on the adequacy of the education provided but on the premise that such education is different from that provided elsewhere. Neb. Const, art. VII, § 1, requires “free instruction” in the “common schools,” not the same instruction in all such schools.
While the first dissent recognizes this pleading deficiency, it suggests that the petition could be modified so as to state the cause of action the dissent then proceeds tó outline. In doing so, this dissent overlooks the difference between the amendment of an existing suit and the pleading of a new and different one. It is well established that while the modification of a petition so as to amplify, expand, or elaborate the original allegations does not state a new and different cause of action, Muenchau v. Swarts, 170 Neb. 209, 102 N.W.2d 129 (1960), a modification relying on entirely different reasons for relief does so, even if founded on *173the same injury as was the original petition, Johnson v. American Smelting & Refining Co., 80 Neb. 255, 116 N.W. 517 (1908).
Nor would I be comfortable in suggesting the allegations we might later be required to review.