Court Opinion

ID: 9736035
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:41:18.534674+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:03.583580
License: Public Domain

Boslaugh and Smith, JJ.,
dissenting in part.
We respectfully dissent from the part of the majority opinion which holds that the grid system law contravenes Article XII, section 1, Constitution of Nebraska, our concurrence in the other parts being noted, The majority opinion announces that a law creating a single public corporation is necessarily special within the constitutional prohibition, and it strips the Legislature of power to cast a state instrumentality in the form of a public corporation, though the corporation be under a duty to serve equally every person and every locality.
The conclusion in the majority opinion is extreme. *463It is not thrust upon us by our decisions involving local corporations. It breaks with our settled definition of general and special laws. It is a far cry from the purpose of the constitutional provision, from the elimination of logrolling, and other well-known evils of special legislation. See, State ex rel. Kauer v. Defenbacher, 153 Ohio St. 268, 91 N. E. 2d 512; Ennis v. State Highway Commission, 231 Ind. 311, 108 N. E. 2d 687; Indiana State Toll Bridge Commission v. Minor, 236 Ind. 193, 139 N. E. 2d 445; Orbison v. Welsh, 242 Ind. 385, 179 N. E. 2d 727; State ex rel. Carter v. Harris, 273 Ala. 374, 377, 141 So. 2d 175, 177. We regret the mistake — the majority opinion placing form ahead of substance. See, State ex rel. Johnson v. Consumers Public Power Dist., 143 Neb. 753, 10 N. W. 2d 784, 152 A. L. R. 480; State ex rel. Wheeler v. Stuht, 52 Neb. 209, 71 N. W. 941.