*1 675 sen- with the the sentence concurrent was made ob- Judge As Chief Gibson previously tences imposed. 508 Cir., (8th 1974),
served in Entrekin v. United States futility exercise in F. 2d 1328: “It be an appears col- and a resources to consider this waste judicial denying after lateral attack on concurrent sentence totality relief on first sentence.” Viewing case from herein, the circumstances distinguish we Lewis, 222 N. 2d and af- State W.
firm the conviction.
For the reasons stated, the convictions of the defend- ant for the Champs robbery the conviction for the Hut Pizza are affirmed. robbery
Affirmed. unincorporation Education an Association, Orleans association, appellee, v. The School District of Or County Nebraska, leans, Harlan, in the State knownas School No District . R-3 of Har also lan County, Nebraska, also known as The Orleans political appellant. Schools, Public subdivision,
229 N. 2dW. May 8,
Filed 1975. No. 39658. *2 Person, Dier & Person and Thomas J. for Monaghan, appellant.
Theodore L. Kessner of Crosby, Guenzel, Davis, Kess- ner & Kuester, for appellee.
Pleard before J.,C. White, Boslaugh, Newton, Clin- ton, JJ., Bkodkey, Hastings, District Judge, Kuns, Retired District Judge. J.
Clinton, This an from appeal an order of the Court of In- dustrial Relations by which it set the rate of pay and certain other benefits for teachers employed by de- it Orleans, District fendant, School plaintiff, Orleans prayed for denied other relief of its members. on behalf Association, Education pro- pursuant appeals to the court to this school district appeal and on 48-812, R. R. S. of section visions plaintiff following (1) has no claims: makes the prior suit, ex- standing not, it had to sue because to it Nebraska available under the remedies hausted Negotiations 79-1287 Act, section Professional Teachers’ founded seq., This contention is 1943. et R. R. S. negotiation plaintiff had not
the fact before 25-314, R. R. complied S. Negotia- (2) Professional Teachers’ The Nebraska R. R. uncon- S. Act
tions they delegate because stitutional agency II, in violation of Article sec-
an administrative pertaining to the delegate separation powers, and to tax agency contrary require- to the to an administrative *3 VIII, 1, section of the Con- ments of Article Nebraska (3) The Nebraska Teachers’ Professional Ne- stitution. delegates
gotiations Act is unconstitutional because it agency legislative power an to administrative without sufficiently guide providing ex- definite standards to II, of that in violation of Article section ercise 1, 1, III, section the Nebraska Constitu- amendatory (4) 48-818, 1943, R. R. tion. S. Section since it makes no 79-810, section R. R. S. men- requirements it tion amended statute violates III, of Article section upon contention
and is unconstitutional. This is founded premise 48-818, that R. R. S. which pay Industrial to the Court of Relations set authorizes budget-making authority rates, in effect transfers from by provided district, 79-810,R. R. the school as S. (5) Industrial The
1943,to the Court of Relations. order pay prescribing the rate of and other benefits is not sustained the evidence. assignment may rather sum dealt first be with
marily. plaintiff argues The defendant that since complied 25-314, R. R. S. had not with section Secretary requires filing of State which a corporated with agent naming the unin certificate resident before agency business, its at is authorized to do attempt tempt negotiate rejection and the legally nugatory. did, Plaintiff the school district were however, com file the certificate before this action was recog menced but after the school district had refused negotiating agent plaintiff mem nize the as the for its record defendant’s re bers. The estáblishes recognize plaintiff negotiating agent fusal as grounded plaintiff’s noncompliance not on with section gave specific 25-314, R. R. S. 1943. defendant two recognize plaintiff. reasons for its refusal to Neither plaintiff’s compliance reáson was related to sec with R. R. 1943. The S. reasons such that were recognized it is clear defendant not would plaintiff compliance if it even had been with section 25-314,R. R. S. 1943. The defendant school district can say heard to at late date that it would have recognized plaintiff compliance had there been with question. the statute in The record indicates otherwise. party gives a reason for When his conduct decision touching anything controversy, involved in a cannot, he litigation begun, change ground put has after his his conduct Boettcher v. another and different consideration.
Goethe, 85 N. W. 2d 884. The following principle applicable: party also seems A who position regard procedure, has taken a has been acted or relied
upon by
adversary
his
or the
estopped
taking
position
court, from
an inconsistent
respecting the
proceeding
same matter in the same
to his
*4
adversary’s prejudice.
County
Lane v. Burt
Rural Pub
Dist.,
lic
1,
Power
Neb.
The next three are somewhat interre- together. lated and will be considered Does the Ne- Negotiations Act and sec- Professional braska Teachers’ unconstitutionally delegate 1943, 48-818, R. R. S. tion legislative power body, Court the administrative to an contrary II, 1, to Article section Relations, of Industrial delegate If it such does the Nebraska Constitution? legis- by sufficiently power, definite is the limited delegate guidelines? the Do these statutes lative body contrary to Article to tax to an administrative VIII, 1, of Nebraska Constitution? section the raising questions defendant relies these the dissenting degree upon opinions in considerable v. School Dist. Dist. of Education Assn. Seward School of 752, 2d dis- Seward, 188 199 W. N. parties questions in not raised noted
sents directly majority dealt in case and opinion. therefore accordingly must examine merits of We dissenting opinions. in the raised issues II, Constitution, of the Nebraska Article section government “The of this as follows: departments, three distinct state are divided into Legislative, person Judicial, no Executive persons departments, being collection of one these any power belonging properly shall exercise to either except expiressly others, as hereinafter directed or permitted.” III,
Article Constitution, the Nebraska necessary quote it is tó . . it, insofar as states: “.
legislative authority the state shall be vested Legislature consisting of one chamber.” VIII, of the Nebraska necessary part
reads as follows: “The revenue governmental its state and subdivisions shall be raised Legislature may in such as taxation manner direct.” Legisla-
Under the our Constitution the delegate taxing power municipal ture authorized corporations. VIII, Art. Constitution. necessary just to ask
It is ourselves what *5 delegates question the above in statute and whether provisions are some manner constitutional violated in necessary by expressly implica- not determined either or by opinion in Dist. Education School of Seward our supra. pos- Seward, Assn. Dist. of Most of the v. School majority opinion in sible in the contentions answered of Education v. School Dist. School of Seward Assn. Dist. supra. Only by Seward, those the mi- claims raised nority upon this court in the relied dissents and now by require the defendant consideration. Most joined in members this court who or authored those dissents or indicated that the matters noted there might properly merit if raised, now, after further consideration, believe otherwise. claim Article 9,
The first is that XV, contemplate does not or author- body ize the creation to deal with labor rela- governmental Judge tions Newton, entities. his in pointed believing out dissent, reasons for so as did the opinion separate may writer of this his in dissent. One willing validity to be concede the contention that only apply regu- amendment was intended to to the public lation of However, utilities. does not answer question Legislature of whether the otherwise has dealing to devise for methods with the labor re- governmental departments. lations of entities and We Legislature conclude that the to create body appropriate powers deal with labor governmental relations of not, entities is for reasons we dependent develop grant later, power given by XV, of the Nebraska Constitution. proposition implicitly recognized That majority in the opinion case as well Seward as in the two dissents. majority opinion, consistently well-recognized with a principle, stated: plenary power “The has including provision control over school districts, for appointment governing election of bodies thereof. Consequently, may provide any it limitations on author- by If the ity board. exercised a school it districts, public complete school over control has such chapter Laws L.B. follows, the enactment exercising act page control.” 1405, was it act which section statement is the referred require ex- amended R. 48-810, R. S. Teachers’ of the Nebraska haustion of the precedent Negotiations Act aas condition Professional jurisdiction of Industrial of the Court to invocation *6 involving persons and activities sub- in cases Relations provisions ject Profes- the Teachers’ of to the Judge Negotiations Newton Act. his dissent sional governmental has been business never “Public said: power. subject police an exercise of of Such the unnecessary type subject to of business is is because this respects legislative all in all control at times and direct remedy provided extraordinary the resort to without the police power.” goes That dissent on to note then legis- authorize XV, section does not the that Article opinion question. of in The writer this in his lation would, “There seem no however, dissent said: to be independently question may that the enact of legislation pub- applicable XV, Article section labor doing employees, in the of Article lic but so separation powers on of The II must be observed.” the separation implying that statement, latter the of provision V, of Constitution or Article section granting judicial courts somehow vio- clearly lated, is, I believe, now mistaken. authority plenary legislative has ex-
The cept the state and federal as limited Constitutions.
Dwyer Omaha-Douglas Building Commission, v. Public bargaining N. 236. 195 W. 2d Collective wholly rights and remedies which arise therefrom are legislative power, of the creation state and federal, relatively origin. Mabry, recent Labor of Relations Bargaining, p. 147. This court and Collective has stated many governmental that the method creation of times grant powers, manner their and the
subdivisions, wholly their is almost exercise within Commission, Building Dwyer Omaha-Douglas sphere. Public sup of school is, course, The true same ra. Assn. v. districts. Dist. School Seward Education supra. Legis It clear Seward, School Dist. that need of Article lature did not XV, to look it section of the Nebraska when entrusted to the Court of Industrial Relations pertaining governmental to labor relations of services. authority by It has III, virtue of question The next to be answered is whether there any merit to contention that R. R. S. delegates legislative power 1943,is void it to an because agency prescribing adequate administrative guidelines governing without power. exercise of that assumption type contention itself contains the that the legislative delegation being requires here considered statutory guidelines statement of to make it valid. validity assumption requires examination. usually way: grant The rule is stated “In power power agency legislate, administrative to an such expressed purpose
must be to the limited and ad- prescribed ministered in accordance standards *7 legislative Terry Carpenter, act.” Inc. v. Nebraska Liquor Com., Control 175 Neb. 26, 120 N. W. 2d 374. We differently. have, however, Dairy stated it In Lincoln Finigan, Co. v. 170 Neb. 104 N. W. 2d 227, we said: legislatively-delegated of a authority “The exercise to regulations carry expressed make rules and legislative purpose, to out an complete operation
or for the designated enforcement of a law with limitations and legislative is an power. standards, of exercise It is administrative its nature and its use administrative agencies usually complete is essential to the and wise power accomplishment of the exercise in the pur- pose which the intended.” In both of those power being delegated rule-making cases the power
683 having of which violation and for the the force law usually mat- penalties imposed. said It is could governmental em- setting compensation of as ters such ployees gen- employment is, of their and the conditions erally legislative power. S., Officers, speaking, C. J. (2), Setting compensation p.
§ not, how- such 336. purely legislative valid dele- that its ever, such specific gation, re- constitutional absence some in the applicable requires to quirement, the strict standards delegation make bodies administrative regulations effect law which rules imposed. penalties are the violation for which 138(b), p. § text S., Law, C. J. Constitutional see governing accompanying note boards of school 20. yet bodies, that his- are not we know
districts torically they delegated, prescription have been without any hire adminis- whatever, standard fix salaries. trators and teachers and to their Similar delegations are made governmental
various as as to the other entities well two government. coordinate branches of legislation relations consider- labor we here goes
ing setting course, further, than the of sal- mere public That act has a much aries teachers. broader purpose is set forth in section R. R. S. legislative delegation type, 1943. When usually held that the it is statement of standards is re- quired. S., Law, 16 C. J. Constitutional
684 employees, compensation presently hav received actually ing regard only wages for time worked not including wages worked, vaca also to but tions, for time holidays, time, and and all benefits other excused including pensions, received, tinuity and and the con insurance stability employment enjoyed by em involving delega ployees.” validity In cases disputes, tion of labor it settle relations has “ only necessary ‘It been held: that the statute es tablish a sufficient standard —a basic definite cer policy guidance tain and rule of action for ” agency created to administer ex the law.’ State rel. Riper Federation, Van Traffic Tel. 2 N. J. Workers’ 66 L. A. 2d 9 A. R. See, 2d 854. also Fairview Hospital Building Assn. v. Public 241 Union, Service Minn 523, 64 N. 2dW. 16. In the case, first-cited New Jersey court held statute was unconstitutional prescribed. because no standards at all However, were pointed it to the statutes of a number of states other as containing apparently standards sufficient. One statutes referred to was “Nebraska Laws Bill ,18.” Chapter This is 48-818, R. R. S. 1943. case,
In second-cited the Minnesota court held the statutory statute of that state to be constitutional. The prescribed standards in the Minnesota act were far less precise than those contained section R. R. S. Pittsburgh Plate Glass v.Co. National Labor Board, Relations S. U. 146, 61 S. Ct. 908, 85 L. Ed. Supreme 1251, the United States Court held that (b) pro National Labor Act, Relations vides the board “shall decide in each case whether, employees in order to insure the full benefit their right self-organization bargaining, to collective policies otherwise effectuate the Act, appropriate purpose unit ing bargain for the of collective employer shall plant be the unit, craft unit, unit, or supplies adequate thereof,” subdivision standards for ad ministrative action unconstitutionally and does not dele- *9 gate power. con- legislative the standard We hold that clearly 1943, R. R. is suffi- 48-818, S. in section tained the is cient and statute constitutional. pointed of Edu- out in School Dist. court Seward
This supra, Seward, of that the v. Dist. cation Assn. School grants creating of Relations act the Industrial Court legislative, body administrative, of a combination that granted by judicial powers. 48-818, Those section receipt require the and the 1943, R. of evidence R. S. powers quasi-judicial. are of Such
determination facts. statute violates constitu- The that the the contention judicial against delegation prohibition the of au- tional thority nonjudicial bodies, however, is not found- well Dist. of Seward Educa- because, ed as we held in School supra, Seward, v. Dist. Court Assn. School the body. an Relations is administrative Industrial func- quasi-judicial one; tion it is a its exercises purely are incidental. creating Court The act of Industrial Relations rights jurisdiction at unknown common law. creates any Mabry, op. juris not from cit. It does take court granted Constitution, V, 1, diction to it Art. which, course, Constitution,
Nebraska
constitutionally
Wright
do.-
rel.
not
ex
could
State
authority
Barney,
133 Neb.
rules of civil R. S. 1943. applicable It of evidence District follows rules clearly jurisdiction § 48-809, Court. R. S. 1943. Its is R. clearly legislative limited to what con
defined 48-801(7), §§ 48-810, 1943. cerns. R. R. S. The Court cannot enforce its orders. Industrial Relations own §§ That to the District Court and to this is left court. 48-819, R.
48-812, 48-818, R. R. S. Section R. S. delegate judicial powers to an administra does body II, 1, Article1 tive in violation of Article section Y, Constitution. 48-818, that section
We now turn to contention delegates of Industrial Rela- R. R. to the Court S. patent It the levy tions to tax. statute grant does not to that court the or as- argument sess tax. The defendant’s is that the order setting salaries affect the and other benefits budget the school district its own under determine legal equiva- R. R. S. this is the taxing authority. lent of It cannot be denied that the ultimately budgetary orders the court and tax equivalent delegation effects, but is this the of a legislative taxing power? gation patent It is if such dele- meaning
constitutes to tax within the practical then would, there as a *10 way legislation type matter, be no of this could ef- fectively implemented obviously impossible for it is for perform the to this task itself. primarily upon implications
The defendant relies
from
opinion
Carlberg
the
of this court in
Metcalfe,
120Neb.
481,
contended Equalization rates, set tax and Assessment to Board regula adopt to rules and Commissioner Tax and to the taxing delegation illegal and the tions was an legislative authority. plain said: “The In respect case we delega unconstitutional tiffs’ contentions with legislative power also to the extend tion require Equaliza the State Board of 377 which of L.B. to set the rate tax on before and Assessment year year begin for 15 of each the taxable
November subsequent year. ning during 15 of calendar Section explicitly subsections, 377, in at least five sets out L.B. computations board, to be made státe computations manner which shall method and be standards to be adjusted specific determined, setting rate of tax. The discussion as to dele used authority gation Tax Commissioner respect apply out above rules set also delegation Equal to the State Board ization and L.B. 377 Assessment. constitutes a valid delegation lawful Board of State *11 Equalization and Assessment and does not violate of Constitution Nebraska nor United States.” The supra, Tiemann, rationale relied in Anderson v.
may following excerpts opin in the be stated from that “ they applicable are here: ion and exercise a ‘The of legislatively-delegated authority carry make to rules expressed purpose, complete or out an for the operation designated enforcement of a law with legislative power.’ not an limitations is exclusive It is 688 by administra- and its use
administrative in its nature usually complete agencies is and wise tive essential to accomplishment pur- in the of the exercise pose Consequently, intended. not
courts are inclined to interfere rules established by legislative they direction bear a re- where reasonable subject legislation lation to the and constitute ” Citing reasonable exercise conferred.’ Regents County 398, Board of 154 Lancaster, Neb. “Delegation legislative power 2d 221. N. W. commonly regu- most indicated where the relations to be highly regulation requires lated are or technical where course continuous decision.” Many greater administrative functions affect or degree budget-making taxing power lesser but delegations. not held invalid Lord, Wilkinson v. 136, 85 county superintendent directing 122 N. a statute, W. the clerk the county
to furnish to the high levy data to amake free school when the school refused so, to do was not held abe violation of Article IX, (the predeces section Nebraska Constitution 6). examples sor of delegation VIII, section Other of valid taxing power, which affect the unconstitutionally but so, are found See, elsewhere. (16), (17), S., C. J. (20), Law, Constitutional p. seq. (determining 614 et validity the amount and against government, claims issuance of bonds authority, setting administrative public salaries of employees); Patton, Sommers v. 399 Ill. 78 N. E. (statute authorizing 2d 313 pension trustees of a fund certify taxing to the the amounts estimated required to be for the obligations). fund to its meet The contention that establishing the act the Court of Industrial Relations amends R. R. S.
and hence III, violates Article of the Nebraska wholly Constitution, is without merit. assignment findings the Court In- supported by
dustrial Relations are not the evidence *12 argued there- in the brief. We nowhere discussed (3), Rules 8 a Revised fore take no note it. See Rule Supreme 1974. Court,
Affirmed. J., concurs in the result. Boslaugh, dissenting. J.,
Newton, opinion necessary disagree with the I find it Edu- Clinton, Dist. Seward J. the case School Seward, Assn. v. Dist. of 188 Neb. cation School question constitutionality of 2d 199 N. W. defining creating act of the Court parties
of Industrial Relations was raised majority opinion ignored question. For the first obliged time we now to meet constitutional questions. my
I reiterate dissent in the case. will not Seward point out that It will suffice to the Constitutional Con- adopting XV, of 1920 in Article vention section Con- clearly exempt Nebraska, intended to stitution political operations and its state subdivisions from the of the Court of Industrial Relations. The Constitution provision is restrictive and whenever constitutional adopted dealing legislative powers, with it is evidence broad, plenary powers that it is intended restrict the Legislature. vested ingless. Otherwise it would be mean- agree Judge I Clinton that the already had to create an industrial com- prior adoption Why §XV, mission to the adopted? Why then was it was over state and political opinion subdivisions deleted? His defeats the people clear will of the of Nebraska. given
Constitution must not be construction people. Hennepin will defeat obvious ofwill State ex rel.
County Amdahl, Bar Assn. v. 264 Minn. 119 W.N.
2d 169. respect interpretation,
With to constitutional court place position should endeavor to itself in of framers of time. at the meant ascertain what constitution # * * thing at provision cannot mean one Constitutional subsequently thing adoption when and another of its time *13 undergone change. v. public Walber sentiments App. Judge, Wayne 2 138N. W. 2d 772. Mich. Circuit people .rat- and who convention Intent of constitutional guideline primary is convention framed ified that which construing Anderson, 155 Colo. constitution. White v. in 2d 333. 291, 394 P. construed as to defeat should not be
“The Constitution interpreta- if framers, another intent of its obvious may adopted equally in accordance with tion be * * * carry the intent. and will out words sense which gath- construing Constitution, intent must “In be spirit document, the letter and the of the ered from both adopt- polestar and and is the intention the makers (Ky. App.), v. 2d 364. ers.” Grantz Grauman S. W. given specific provision constitutional must be effect A against general Ridgeway Catlett, a clause. as Ark. 379 W. 2d 277. S. foregoing well-recognized a rules of sets out few interpretation applicable
constitutional all are and present situation. well-recognized Another rule should be considered. legislative is doctrine established that “The may by constitutional restrictions which limited are impliedly imposed. Restrictions in a constitution as to legislation equally they are effective arise whether implication express terms; or stated in re- such may language employed be found either in strictions purpose or in the cumstances evident which view the cir- was historical events led to the which enact- particular provision part organic ment a as p. 2d, Law, 230, 16 Am. Jur. Constitutional law.” apparent delegates It that the is to the Constitutional- Convention 1919-1920intended the state and its jurisdic- political subdivisions should not fall within the such Under of Industrial Relations. the Court restriction implied there definitely circumstances an to ignore of the Legislature on the constitutional power true It is so effected at the convention. the restriction the State for the people speaks the state the confines of but within only of Nebraska re- instance, its has been this Constitution likewise convention at a constitutional stricted con- Nebraska and people representative then vote framed were adopted stitutional provisions does the of Nebraska. what By people a such situation? ignore has This undertaken apparently legislative court on constitutional function policy grounds.
Clinton, J., respondente. dissent, Newton, in accuses court of un- his Judge or constitutional on pol- function dertaking it cannot This so serious that assertion icy grounds. for in the elaborating No reason existed unanswered.
go *14 of the fundamental nature majority the opinion laws statement of Legislature beyond enact Dwyer as set forth in v. Omaha- general principle Commission, supra. Public Douglas Building cites and relies text Judge upon authority, Newton Law, 2d, Am. in Constitutional p. sup- § Jur. limitation of the by implication a doctrine of port to enact An' state laws. Legislature in text examination the cases cited footnotes re- do they veals that not the broad brush support treat- ment Judge Newton would and have no apply at all to are particular we con- application question The dissent fails call attention sidering. portion text statement on which it relies and which omit- reads as follows: “Legislative ted portion implied deemed curtailed limitations by only cases it is clear that a construction of where the constitutional involved such restrictions. requires Restraints provisions powers legislative inferred. upon lightly implied clearly The restriction must be one that is im- plied.” p. 2d, Law, 16Am. Jur. Constitutional that, dissent contends
The the Constitution because Legislature authorized the to create an com- industrial purpose dealing mission for the with certain re- labor problems, provision lations the that constitutional restricts Legislature entrusting from after ever to that same by commission, it, later created to deal with, in such manner as direct, shall the labor governmental relations of subdivisions. Such construc- contrary tion is to the fundamental nature of the state legislative power system government. our under position application which the dissent takes is but an “expressio the maxim unius est exclusio alterius.” That application legislative maxim powers. has no to the state against implication doctrine restriction leg- Legislatures islative upon of state rests a funda- mental difference nature of the federal power and that of the states. The federal Constitution grant power. is a The state Constitutions are re- powers. Legislatures strictions on The state plenary legislative power except expressly as denied them expressly the Constitutions or as is peo- reserved to ple Meyer themselves. County State ex rel. Lancaster, Judge Spencer 113 N. W. 2d discusses this fundamental. In that case this court was called to construe the of the constitu- recently tional amendment adopted then which author- ized the to authorize counties and cities to issue revenue bonds development. for industrial Art. § XV, .16, (repealed 1972). Constitution This adopted by article been had the voters to avoid con- against stitutional lending restriction the credit of or private state its persons subdivisions to corpora- *15 tions. An earlier industrial development act had been by declared unconstitutional this court for that reason. XV, of the Nebraska Constitution, was part as follows: “Sec. 16. Notwithstanding any other
693 may author- provision the the including village, city county, incorporated any ize or. acquire, charters, to operating home rule cities under develop, property personal to and lease and own, real enterprises manufacturing issue industrial defraying purpose the cost bonds revenue for by property acquiring developing construction, such (Emphasis supplied.) (cid:127)purchase, When, or otherwise.” Legisla- pursuant amendment, to this constitutional enabling statutes, it authorized ture enacted the develop, municipalities only “own, and lease real property,” property acquired . . also to sell the but . argued
and owned. It that the could by municipality property not authorize the sale provision merely because the constitutional authorized municipality develop, “own, and lease.” This con- rejected by Judge Spencer, tention was this court. writ- ing point for court, said: “Contention No. 4 raises the specifically pow- that the did not amendment mention the authority granted sell, er to so that L.B. 159 exceeds the by sight the amendment. should not lose We fact grant that the Constitution is not a but rather is a re- legislative power, Legislature may striction on and the legislate any subject by not inhibited the Constitu- tion. State, Swanson v. Neb. N. W. 264. said
“We in State v. Sheldon, 111 N. W. governmental system up 372: In the construction of a plan, on by American the broad outlines are furnished necessary carry the constitution, but all the details powers government provided by the the action of the stitution, into effect are
legislature. of the con one sense creative, while in also limit de powers depart fine to be exercised the various government; except but, ments so far as au its thority leg limited defined constitution, fully governmental islature the state is as vested with parliament. as the British See discussion of subject in Nelson, State 34 Neb. 169.’ *16 (cid:127) grant “Certainly right municipality property has not been ato of sale of merit to is no and there inhibited .plaintiff’s fourth contention.” Sayre 854, 59 N. W 40 Neb. Moore, ex rel. v. In State
. Cooley, Lim quoted from Constitutional 755, this court congress (4th Ed.), p. is a 210: “When law itations void, into the national constitution as we look assailed enough specified powers grant is if the broad to see is attacked on it; to' embrace but when state law any ground, presumably case, it is valid in same n presumption one, in the constitu is a conclusive unless States, state, or of the we are unable of the United prohibited. that it in the con discover We look .to grants States for stitution United power, but in the constitution of the state to ascertain any imposed complete if limitations have been legislative department .powers with which legislature is vested in its creation. . . . the state state subjects jurisdiction legislation 'has all on which its law-making prohibited. the state recognizes except no restraints, none, is bound imposed by such as are the constitution.” principles generally we have enunciated above are Particularly opinions well-considered followed. include Frohmiller, Earhart v. Ariz. 178 P. 2d 436; Crowley, 82 Idaho 356 P. 2d Penrod doing Griffin, business as M. R. Griffin Installation foreign Company, appellee, Industries, v. Geneva Inc., corporation, appel lant.
228 N. W. 2d 880 May 8, Filed 1975. No. 39710. notes pp. 629, 99.5, 99.10,99.15, provides part R. 48-818, R. S. Section as fol- making findings “In orders, such and order lows: of Industrial Relations shall establish (cid:127)the Court rates of employment comparable pay and conditions of which are wage prevalent paid rates conditions of em- to ployment for maintained the same or similar work of exhibiting like or similar skills under the workers or similar same working establishing wage conditions. take court shall into consideration rates the the overall