Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
16 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2022 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Nebraska courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hug v. City of Omahagreen2 sentences2009We have recently stated in the context of a special legislation analysis that "[g]enerally, outside of the plain language used in legislation, a legislative body's purpose or intent in enacting legislation is determined through an examination of the legislative history of a particular enactment." Hug v. City of Omaha, 275 Neb. 820, 824 , 749 N.W.2d 884, 888 (2008). 2009We have recently stated in the context of a special legislation analysis that "[g]enerally, outside of the plain language used in legislation, a legislative body's purpose or intent in enacting legislation is determined through an examination of the legislative history of a particular enactment." Hug v. City of Omaha, 275 Neb. 820, 824 , 749 N.W.2d 884, 888 (2008). | 2 | 5 |
Bergan Mercy Health System v. Havengreen2 sentences2000As explained by my dissent in Bergan Mercy Health Sys. v. Haven, 260 Neb. 846 , 620 N.W.2d 339 (2000), the classes created by Neb.Rev.Stat. § 52-401 (Reissue 1998) with regard to a special legislation claim are (1) the particular class of physicians, nurses, and hospitals who receive the privilege of the lien and (2) the general class of those who likewise perform services of any nature in the treatment of, or in connection with, an injury without the privilege of the lien. 2000As explained by my dissent in Bergan Mercy Health Sys. v. Haven, 260 Neb. 846 , 620 N.W.2d 339 (2000), the classes created by Neb.Rev.Stat. § 52-401 (Reissue 1998) with regard to a special legislation claim are (1) the particular class of physicians, nurses, and hospitals who receive the privilege of the lien and (2) the general class of those who likewise perform services of any nature in the treatment of, or in connection with, an injury without the privilege of the lien. | 2 | 4 |
Friehe v. Schaadgreen2 sentences2022To my ears, that sounds a lot like the intermediate scrutiny test developed by the U.S. Supreme Court under which certain types of classifications “must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives.” See, e.g., Friehe v. Schaad, 249 Neb. 825, 832 , 545 N.W.2d 740, 746 (1996). 2022To my ears, that sounds a lot like the intermediate scrutiny test developed by the U.S. Supreme Court under which certain types of classifications “must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives.” See, e.g., Friehe v. Schaad, 249 Neb. 825, 832 , 545 N.W.2d 740, 746 (1996). | 2 | 2 |
Dowd Grain Co. v. County of Sarpygreen2 sentences2022Our precedent says that to withstand a special legislation challenge, a legislative classification “must rest upon some reason of public policy, some substantial difference in circumstances, which would naturally suggest the justice or expediency of diverse legislation regarding the objects to be classified.” Dowd Grain Co. v. County of Sarpy, 291 Neb. 620, 628 , 867 N.W.2d 599 , 606 (2015). 2022Our precedent says that to withstand a special legislation challenge, a legislative classification “must rest upon some reason of public policy, some substantial difference in circumstances, which would naturally suggest the justice or expediency of diverse legislation regarding the objects to be classified.” Dowd Grain Co. v. County of Sarpy, 291 Neb. 620, 628 , 867 N.W.2d 599 , 606 (2015). | 1 | 3 |
Porter v. Jensengreen2 sentences1992See, Porter v. Jensen, 223 Neb. 438 , 390 N.W.2d 511 (1986); Farm Bureau Life Ins. 1992See, Porter v. Jensen, 223 Neb. 438 , 390 N.W.2d 511 (1986); Farm Bureau Life Ins. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
D-CO, Inc. v. City of La Vista
green
2 sentences2022In support of this argument, REO compares Riley’s affidavit to a commissioned study a municipality offered in defending an ordinance regulating rental properties against a special legislation challenge in D-CO, Inc. v. City of La Vista, 285 Neb. 676 , 829 N.W.2d 105 (2013). 2022In support of this argument, REO compares Riley’s affidavit to a commissioned study a municipality offered in defending an ordinance regulating rental properties against a special legislation challenge in D-CO, Inc. v. City of La Vista, 285 Neb. 676 , 829 N.W.2d 105 (2013). | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Staley v. City of Omaha
green
2 sentences2014In all other cases where a gen- eral law can be made applicable, no special law shall be enacted. [3,4] A legislative act constitutes special legislation if (1) it creates an arbitrary and unreasonable method of classifica- tion or (2) it creates a permanently closed class.40 A special legislation analysis focuses on a legislative body’s purpose in creating a challenged class and asks if there is a substan- tial difference of circumstances to suggest the expediency of diverse legislation.41 The prohibition aims to prevent legisla- tion that arbitrarily benefits a special class.42 [5,6] When th 2014In all other cases where a gen- eral law can be made applicable, no special law shall be enacted. [3,4] A legislative act constitutes special legislation if (1) it creates an arbitrary and unreasonable method of classifica- tion or (2) it creates a permanently closed class.40 A special legislation analysis focuses on a legislative body’s purpose in creating a challenged class and asks if there is a substan- tial difference of circumstances to suggest the expediency of diverse legislation.41 The prohibition aims to prevent legisla- tion that arbitrarily benefits a special class.42 [5,6] When th | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Banks v. Heineman
green
1 sentence2013We have held that the Legislature may reduce the limitation period for bringing a particular cause of action, but when it does so, it cannot make the new limitation period applicable to existing claims without allowing a rea- sonable time for parties to bring an action before such claims Nebraska Advance Sheets BANKS v. HEINEMAN 403 Cite as 286 Neb. 390 are absolutely barred by a new enactment.40 We examined one such provision in Macku v. Drackett Products Co.,41 which involved a legislative change in the limitation period appli- cable to product liability actions. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
A. M. v. Mental Health Board of the 11th Judicial District
neutral
2 sentences2013Ed. 2d 214 . 10 See id. 11 See id. 12 See Hug, supra note 2 . 2013They also argue that the study did not show that rental properties were a problem or that any residential properties were dilapidated. [9] A court may review the legislative history of a statute or ordinance when considering a special legislation challenge.12 And La Vista’s 2000 study clearly played a role in its decision 6 See id. 7 See Hug, supra note 2 . 8 See Anthony, Inc., supra note 4. 9 See In re Interest of A.M., 281 Neb. 482 , 797 N.W.2d 233 (2011), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 341 , 181 L. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Gourley Ex Rel. Gourley v. Nebraska Methodist Health System, Inc.
green
2 sentences2009In making a special legislation analysis, "all reasonable intendments must be indulged to support the constitutionality of legislative acts, including classifications adopted by the Legislature." Id. at 943 , 663 N.W.2d at 68 . 2009In making a special legislation analysis, "all reasonable intendments must be indulged to support the constitutionality of legislative acts, including classifications adopted by the Legislature." Id. at 943 , 663 N.W.2d at 68 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Haman v. Marsh
green
1 sentence2004"In determining whether a class is closed, [a court] is not limited to the face of the legislation, but may consider the act's application." Haman v. Marsh, 237 Neb. at 717 , 467 N.W.2d at 849 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
City of Scottsbluff v. Tiemann
green
2 sentences2004The issue you have asked us to consider is whether the requirement in AM2713 that ethanol producers receiving benefits under the Act must be producing at the rate of fifteen million gallons annually on or before October 1, 2004, to be eligible for incentives under contracts entered under the Employment and Investment Growth Act or the Invest Nebraska Act, establishes an improper "closed class." "[A] classification which limits the application of the law to a present condition, and leaves no room or opportunity for an increase in the numbers of the class by future growth or development, is spec 2004The issue you have asked us to consider is whether the requirement in AM2713 that ethanol producers receiving benefits under the Act must be producing at the rate of fifteen million gallons annually on or before October 1, 2004, to be eligible for incentives under contracts entered under the Employment and Investment Growth Act or the Invest Nebraska Act, establishes an improper "closed class." "[A] classification which limits the application of the law to a present condition, and leaves no room or opportunity for an increase in the numbers of the class by future growth or development, is spec | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State ex rel. Conkling v. Kelso
green
2 sentences2004The issue you have asked us to consider is whether the requirement in AM2713 that ethanol producers receiving benefits under the Act must be producing at the rate of fifteen million gallons annually on or before October 1, 2004, to be eligible for incentives under contracts entered under the Employment and Investment Growth Act or the Invest Nebraska Act, establishes an improper "closed class." "[A] classification which limits the application of the law to a present condition, and leaves no room or opportunity for an increase in the numbers of the class by future growth or development, is spec 2004The issue you have asked us to consider is whether the requirement in AM2713 that ethanol producers receiving benefits under the Act must be producing at the rate of fifteen million gallons annually on or before October 1, 2004, to be eligible for incentives under contracts entered under the Employment and Investment Growth Act or the Invest Nebraska Act, establishes an improper "closed class." "[A] classification which limits the application of the law to a present condition, and leaves no room or opportunity for an increase in the numbers of the class by future growth or development, is spec | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Swanson v. State Department of Education
green
2 sentences2003Haven, supra. See, also, Swanson v. State, 249 Neb. 466 , 544 N.W.2d 333 (1996); Stanton v. Mattson, 175 Neb. 767 , 123 N.W.2d 844 (1963). 2003Haven, supra. See, also, Swanson v. State, 249 Neb. 466 , 544 N.W.2d 333 (1996); Stanton v. Mattson, 175 Neb. 767 , 123 N.W.2d 844 (1963). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Big John's Billiards, Inc. v. Balka
green
2 sentences2003See, e.g., Bergan Mercy Health Sys. v. Haven, supra; Big Johns Billiards v. Balka, 260 Neb. 702 , 619 N.W.2d 444 (2000); Haman v. Marsh, supra. We note that a special legislation analysis is similar to an equal protection analysis, and often the two are discussed together because, at times, both issues can be decided on the same facts. 2003See, e.g., Bergan Mercy Health Sys. v. Haven, supra; Big Johns Billiards v. Balka, 260 Neb. 702 , 619 N.W.2d 444 (2000); Haman v. Marsh, supra. We note that a special legislation analysis is similar to an equal protection analysis, and often the two are discussed together because, at times, both issues can be decided on the same facts. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Pfizer Inc. v. Lancaster County Board of Equalization
green
2 sentences2003Id. 2003Id. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Stanton v. Mattson
green
2 sentences2003Haven, supra. See, also, Swanson v. State, 249 Neb. 466 , 544 N.W.2d 333 (1996); Stanton v. Mattson, 175 Neb. 767 , 123 N.W.2d 844 (1963). 2003Haven, supra. See, also, Swanson v. State, 249 Neb. 466 , 544 N.W.2d 333 (1996); Stanton v. Mattson, 175 Neb. 767 , 123 N.W.2d 844 (1963). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Kalisek v. Abramson
green
2 sentences2000State v. Cushman, 256 Neb. 335 , 589 N.W.2d 533 (1999); Kalisek v. Abramson, 257 Neb. 517 , 599 N.W.2d 834 (1999); Metropolitan Utilities Dist. v. Twin Platte NRD, 250 Neb. 442 , 550 N.W.2d 907 (1996); State ex rel. 2000State v. Cushman, 256 Neb. 335 , 589 N.W.2d 533 (1999); Kalisek v. Abramson, 257 Neb. 517 , 599 N.W.2d 834 (1999); Metropolitan Utilities Dist. v. Twin Platte NRD, 250 Neb. 442 , 550 N.W.2d 907 (1996); State ex rel. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Cushman
neutral
2 sentences2000State v. Cushman, 256 Neb. 335 , 589 N.W.2d 533 (1999); Kalisek v. Abramson, 257 Neb. 517 , 599 N.W.2d 834 (1999); Metropolitan Utilities Dist. v. Twin Platte NRD, 250 Neb. 442 , 550 N.W.2d 907 (1996); State ex rel. 2000State v. Cushman, 256 Neb. 335 , 589 N.W.2d 533 (1999); Kalisek v. Abramson, 257 Neb. 517 , 599 N.W.2d 834 (1999); Metropolitan Utilities Dist. v. Twin Platte NRD, 250 Neb. 442 , 550 N.W.2d 907 (1996); State ex rel. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Metropolitan Utilities District v. Twin Platte Natural Resources District
green
2 sentences2000State v. Cushman, 256 Neb. 335 , 589 N.W.2d 533 (1999); Kalisek v. Abramson, 257 Neb. 517 , 599 N.W.2d 834 (1999); Metropolitan Utilities Dist. v. Twin Platte NRD, 250 Neb. 442 , 550 N.W.2d 907 (1996); State ex rel. 2000State v. Cushman, 256 Neb. 335 , 589 N.W.2d 533 (1999); Kalisek v. Abramson, 257 Neb. 517 , 599 N.W.2d 834 (1999); Metropolitan Utilities Dist. v. Twin Platte NRD, 250 Neb. 442 , 550 N.W.2d 907 (1996); State ex rel. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.