State Ex Rel. Spire v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.

ex rel. Robert M. Attorney Spire, State of Nebraska Nebraska, appellant, v. General State of Telephone Company al., appellees Bell et . Northwestern 445 N.W.2d284 September Filed No. 87-425. 1989. General, Attorney Thompson, R. John Spire,

Robert M. Comer, Jay appellant, Dale A. and L. Bartel for Schudel, Overcash, Greer, and Paul M. Taylor Bert L. J. Smith, Greer, Harold

Woods, Aitken, Spangler; Overcash and McGrath, Rock, Jacobson, E. and A. Maureen L. David Dickhute, Campbell; Richard A. Nancy of Kutak Rock & L. Holdeman; Peterson, & Nelson Johanns Morris of Peterson appellees. E. Belmont for and Mark C.J., Caporale, Shanahan, White,

Hastings, Boslaugh, J., D. J. J and acott, Grant, End J. Shanahan, relator, Nebraska, Attorney of the State of as The General declaratory judgment in the district court brought action Laws, act), (the L.B. 835 County Neb. to have 1986 Lancaster seq. (Reissue et Stat. 86-801 as Neb. Rev. §§ now codified grounds. The number of on a declared unconstitutional 1987), respondents, Telephone Company (NWB), Bell Northwestern Telephone Company (LT&T), and Telegraph Lincoln Midwest, (AT&T), Inc. which AT&T Communications act, litigable validity challenged have in the interests provisions contended that was constitutional all by Attorney challenged The court General. district declared “valid, constitutional, validly that L.B. 835 enacted lawful force and effect.” Attorney appeals, assigning General as error the district (1) unconstitutionally failure hold

court’s that L.B. 835 (PSC) divests the Public Nebraska Service Commission of its Const, IV, regulatory authority, granted in Neb. art. over companies; (2) erroneous conclusion that legislation” L.B. 835 Const, valid “specific constituted under Neb. IV, 20; (3) art. telephone erroneous conclusion that procedural subscribers are process not entitled to due connection with telephone proceedings rate review conducted 835; pursuant (4) to L.B. erroneous conclusion L.B. 835 adequate process safeguards contains due for telephone subscribers, assuming that subscribers are entitled to such protection; (5) legislatively erroneous conclusion that the expressed goals may of L.B. 835 a be as valid exercise fulfilled police of power. the state’s

STANDARD OF REVIEW declaratory action, A judgment pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-21, 149 seq. (Reissue et 1985), appropriate §§ is an method to judicial obtain a construction of a statute or a determination of validity, including statute’s challenge resolution of a to the constitutionality 1, of a statute. Mullendore v. School Dist. No. 28, 388 223 Neb. N.W.2d 93 (1986). declaratory

In a judgment involving action issues, determination may of factual such issues be tried and 25-21, 157; determined as in civil other actions. Millard Rur. Omaha, Fire 1 City 50, Prot. Dist. No. v. Neb. 226 409 of 574 (1987). appellate N.W.2d In review of an action for a declaratory action, judgment in findings a law factual trier of will fact not be set findings clearly aside unless such are Serv., Inc., erroneous. Heimbouch v. Victorio Ins. 220 Neb.

[265] review of an action for appellate (1985). W.2d 620 369 N. action, standard of equity an declaratory judgment Cross, 219 applies. OB-GYN v. Blue equity for an case review appeal from a In an (1985). N.W.2d 550 Neb. 361 court, questions regarding declaratory judgment, appellate independent law, its obligation to reach conclusion has an County York the trial court. from the conclusion reached Johnson, Neb. 403, 432 N.W.2d 215(1988). 230 v. is declaratory judgment that L.B. 835 unconstitutional

A of the injunctive against relief enforcement might be basis for a and, is akin to relief damages, for more act unrelated to claim through a action. than relief law through equity an action rather Bd., 226 Neb. Public Emp. rel. Ret. Spire Cf. State ex v. declaratory judgment (action N. W.2d 463 (1987) against injunction an and for statute was unconstitutional statute). Consequently, enforcement of the unconstitutional equity we for review of present appeal apply standard appeal: action, Supreme Court appeal equity

“In an of an de on the and reaches a questions tries factual novo record court, findings independent of the trial conclusion on a evidence is in conflict provided, where credible fact, Supreme Court considers and material issue of weight judge that the trial heard and give to the fact accepted observed the witnesses and one version facts rather than another.” Taylor, 41, 42, N.W.2d 474-75 v. Neb.

Frenzen (1989). claiming has the burden

One that a statute is unconstitutional Ewing unconstitutional. questioned show that statute 798, 420 v. Bd. Cty. Equal., Scotts Bluff 227 Neb. N.W.2d Comm., 217 Neb. Real Estate Weiner v. State ex rel. (1988); 372, 348 (1984). N.W.2d 879 TELE JARGON

ACRONYMS AND Co., Tel. Tel.and States v. American result of United As 460 U.S. 1001, 103 S. Ct. 1982), 552 F. Supp. (D.D.C. aff'd AT&T caused (1983), 75 L. Ed. 2d 472 divestiture industry. The changes in telecommunications dramatic geographic telephone was divided into service areas nation LATAs, Transport acronym “Local Access and called NWB, companies, operating Areas.” The Bell such as became regional holding company. holding Each subsidiaries of subsidiaries, company, through provide only its was allowed to exchange by or (“Plain local service nontoll local calls “POTS” Telephone Service”), (long-distance Old intraLATA toll service LATA), exchange toll calls to areas within a customer’s access (customer long-distance service access carriers allowed for LATA, “interLATA,” service), directory LATA to or compete services. AT&T was free to enter and in all markets and, fact, granted by authority was the PSC to serve as long-distance Nebraska an intrastate inter LATA carrier. Nebraska was divided into three LATAs—one LATA Omaha, Lincoln, centered around another around and the encompassed third LATA the balance of Nebraska.

BACKGROUND FOR L.B. 835 The Federal Communications Commission controls exchange long-distance interstate inter service. Consequently, before L.B. the PSC controlled three types basic service, telecommunications Nebraska: (1) exchange local “POTS”; (2) interexchange (toll intraLATA service calls within exchange LATA from to exchange); (3) intrastate (toll interLATA service calls within the state from LATA to LATA). Before L.B. authority the PSC had approve telephone rates submitted applications from telecommunications companies, entry to control into and exit from the market supplier, and to quality control the provided of service by telecommunications companies. commissioned the Arthur Andersen

Accounting firm to prepare survey of the telecommunications industry in Nebraska. “major Andersen’s observations” were reflected in Summary” “Executive report: of its competition Further

[1.] within the telecommuni inevitable____ industry cations in Nebraska is The main influence behind competition [2.] increased technology....

[267] activity, appears it that further historical Based on [3.] technologies which industry changes in the and the industry rapid as and dramatic will be at least support the decade____ changes in the last as and regulatory framework present the Under [4.] structure, telephone bypass of the traditional pricing may as system likely and accelerate is to continue technology competition and increases---- advances increases, competition industry changes and As

[5.] some shifting may revenues create difficulties for others____ opportunities for providers service undergone pricing telephone services has [6.] changes change. and will continue to recently developing report expressed concern over Andersen’s “bypass,” when a phenomenon known as telecommunications long-distance forgoes current customer service local through facilities of telephone company and obtains service system an illustration of company. another microwave A. customer, If a technology bypass. which be involved in a by economic incentive based on the customer’s motivated service, bypass telephone elects requirements substantial for company’s telephone company, bypassed customer’s higher support pay help customers will rates “to other there are fewer [bypassed] system’s fixed costs” because customers. 835

THE ACT: L.B. report response expressed to the concerns in Andersen’s and'by industry, Legislature, after telecommunications debate, much enacted L.B. 835.

Statutory Objectives L.B. 835 86-801) (§ L.B. 835 Section of to: policy of the state

declares that it is services; (1)Preserve affordable telecommunications availability efficiency (2) Maintain advance services; of telecommunications charges pay only reasonable

(3) Ensure that consumers services; and telecommunications telecommuni- diversity supply of in the (4) Promote throughout the products services and state. cations egulatory PSC’sR Po wer (§ 86-803(1)) L.B. 835 (1), Section subsection concerns regulation scope of PSC over telecommunications companies: act,

Except provided as in sections of this subject companies shall be regulation by the commission Telecommunications [PSC]. not, however, subject companies any be shall to rate regulation by subject the commission and shall not be to prescribed provisions charges Chapter in as rates and 75, shall, 1 companies articles and 6. Telecommunications instead, file rate their lists for telecommunications services days’ which shall be ten effective after notice to the exception monthly with commission the rates for basic exchange local services.

Thus, interexchange service, for intraLATA and interLATA days, and, rates submitted to PSC become effective after 10 835, the result of power as L.B. the PSC has no to review those rates. Authority

PSC Rate over “POTS” Section (2), (§ subsection of L.B. 835 86-803(2)) allows companies change exchange telecommunications local rates only days’ after 60 by notice to subscribers affected the rate change. requisite notice to customers must include:

(a) increase, the reasons for the rate (b) description of the service, affected (c) explanation right of the petition subscriber to public hearing commission for increase, on the rate (d) exchanges a list of which are by proposed increase, affected dates, (e) rate and times, places and public for the meetings informational required by this section.

L.B. 835 substantially changed previous PSC regulatory by scheme restricting the situations in which the PSC was empowered to review charged reasonableness of certain rates by telephone companies. Under L.B. the PSC has review rates for exchange basic local only (1) service when a complaint, signed by specified percentage of subscribers

[269] (from depending number percent percent, to 5 on the by within question), subscribers affected the rate in is filed days subscribers, (2) after notice has been sent to the and on company PSC’s if a has own motion telecommunications exchange by percent increased basic local rates more than any 835, 3(3) 86-803(3) and and period. (7) (§ 12-month L.B. § (7)). procedures, Under both rate review the PSC must hold a hearing days complaint within (1) after the subscribers’ has been (customer-instigated review) (2) filed or to the notice company (PSC-initiated review), telecommunications and “fair, proposed just, determine whether rates are days hearing, may reasonable.” Within 60 after the PSC issue, adjusting charges enter “an order except the rates at may any charge that the not set rate below the actual [PSC] service____” cost of providing such L.B. If the 3(7). PSC days fails hearing, to issue an within 60 after order rates placed company effect the telecommunications are approved. deemed provision L.B. 835’s for customer-initiated 31, 1991. August rate review PSC terminates Company-Initiated Review A company application file an with the PSC request the PSC prescribe fair and reasonable rates for the company. 3(4) (§ 83-803(4)). Quality Service of (6) provides

Subsection of 3 in L.B. 835 that the PSC “shall § retain quality regulation by of service over the provided services all companies____” telecommunications 86-803(6).

Change by Set Rates PSC In L.B. (10) provides: subsection “No may company change telecommunications basic its local exchange ninety days entry rate within after final of a order adjusting pursuant such rate to and (3), (4), (7) subsections this 86-803(10). section.” § PSC;

Monitoring by Report Annual Legislature to (§ 86-804) pertains Section 4 act of the the PSC’s monitoring continued industry: telecommunications provide The commission shall with year January of each on report on or before annual industry. The telecommunications of the Nebraska status quality The of telecommuni- (1) describe: report shall citizens of being provided to the cations services Nebraska; availability and affordable of diverse (2) the people services to all of telecommunications exchange Nebraska; of local (3) the level of rates interexchange telecommunications companies question of address the companies. report shall also purposes legislation further to achieve the need for 1to 11of this act. sections Market; Entry Keeping Record over into the

PSC Control the PSC to issue a (§ 86-805) 5 L.B. 835 authorizes Section of company for interLATA certificate to a telecommunications deny interexchange certification service within Nebraska and any company telecommunications which: by the required the information (a) provide Does not commission; bond, required; if

(b) provide performance Fails to adequate financial resources to (c) possess Does not service; provide proposed or competency (d) possess adequate not technical Does provide proposed service. (§ 86-807)provides: 7 the

Section of act statute, (1) Except requirements established limit, remove, regulatory may or waive commission requirements companies when it for telecommunications competition purposes will determines that serve same public regulation. The revoke as interest commission any grants regulations if waivers it or reinstate such protect public would revocation or reinstatement finding upon interest the telecommunications company restricting output, impairing market customer interest, activity. engaging anticompetitive in unlawful company A shall at a

(2) minimum: according regulations

(a) Keep its accounts to rules and commission; adopted promulgated (b) File reports financial with the commission as required by and in a prescribed by form and at times commission;

(c) Keep on file at price the commission such current lists and may service standards as the require; commission

(d) Cooperate investigations with commission complaints. customer Nonregulated A ctivities “ (§ 86-808)

Section 8 of the act exempts [o]ne-way broadcast or cable television signals,” transmission of television or radio service, service, mobile paging radio radio and cellular services regulation from by the PSC. Against

Actions Companies Telecommunications Section 11 (§ of L.B. 835 86-811) “any allows interested person” to file an concerning action the district court company’s alleged telecommunications violation of L.B. 835. If company act, has may violated the “the court issue an injunction proper or other process to restrain the company . . . continuing from such violation and order additional relief.”

Severability Section 16 of the provides: any act “If section in this act or any part any section shall be declared invalid or unconstitutional, such declaration validity shall not affect the or constitutionality remaining portions of the thereof.”

L.B. 835’S ECONOMIC IMPACT ACCORDING TO

EXPERTS Conflicting testimony from experts two in telecom- munications point economics was the focal declaratory judgment Bolter, action. Dr. Walter public certified engineer, accountant economics, who also holds a Ph.D. in expressing opinion his whether L.B. 835 advanced the four goals statement,” listed in the “policy statute’s testified that the preserve act would neither affordable telecommunications service in Nebraska efficiency availability nor advance telecommunications service. Dr. Bolter opinion based his on the industry the telecommunications

“very monopolistic” state of power Nebraska, which, with PSC’s diminished coupled in entry into the L.B. 835’s barriers for regulate rates and companies an marketplace, accorded telecommunications essence, Dr. ability rates. Bolter to raise unrestricted leaving price market forces control to questioned the wisdom of when, view, insignificant exert were too in his such forces major companies. any influence on the telecommunications that under L.B. consumers Dr. Bolter further testified for their “only by pay reasonable rates happenstance” would again, Dr. Bolter based his telecommunications services. Once opinion of market forces as a substitute on absence regulation prices and control of for telecommunications. Finally, he did believe that L.B. 835 Dr. Bolter testified that not “promote diversity supply would in telecommunications of difficulty products” supplier’s services and in view of a new experienced entering competing which would be in within industry. Dr. Bolter also testified about telecommunications competition telephone the condition of in three areas of the interLATA; interexchange; market: intraLATA and intraLATA exchange, Despite presence local or “POTS.” of other suppliers, prevented interLATA AT&T’s dominance competition in the interLATA market. The intraLATA interexchange market is much more concentrated than the is, therefore, interLATA market and “price more vulnerable to noted, leadership” large, monopolistic supplier. Dr. Bolter however, that the PSC applications had received from new entrants applicants into the intraLATA which could market — provide competition existing some suppliers. Although there applications have been no telephone for local service new entrants which compete existing suppliers, could with some technological developments, systems private such as microwave phones, may provide cellular customers with local exchange Bolter, service. According to Dr. regarding statistics by major revenues lost companies telecommunications as the bypass result of “very sketchy.” are Vondras,

John executive president assistant to the NWB of employee years, a NWB for 16 regarding testified “bypass,” significant most form of competition NWB, occurs when a customer confronting Bypass NWB. complete a AT&T, company’s facilities to LT&Tuses another customers, largest study NWB’s 149 In a telephone call. pattern volume and 140customers had a NWB determined that economically usage bypass which made Vondras, study According NWB’s revealed attractive. $27 NWB. million for

bypass could result in lost revenue technological of a number of Vondras testified that on account years, competition faces during past few NWB advances exchange market. the local Alessio, and is a

Dr. Frank who has a Ph.D. economics University, public program in the utilities at Stanford lecturer analysis performed own of the telecommunications his industry’s in Nebraska. Dr. Alessio focused on condition vulnerability,” telephone company’s “revenue traditional competitor might “pick revenue which a new be able to off.” high-volume customers in Dr. Alessio testified that because relatively in both Omaha and Lincoln were clustered small areas, easily geographic a new entrant into the market could incurring obtain a substantial volume of business without inordinately high entering costs for the market. Based on his analysis, Dr. Alessio concluded that the telecommunications contestable, “technically market in Nebraska was rivalrous and workably competitive.”

Referring Dr. that as a result of to L.B. Alessio testified needs, changes technology public “traditional and customer utility regulation longer workable in the current is no in telecommunications.” Dr. Alessio characterized environment regulator refreshingly L.B. 835 as “a realistic view of what oversight dynamic be in the market time we are needs to statement, seeing.” Regarding policy Dr. Alessio 835’s opinion pay that customers would disagreed with Dr. Bolter’s According only by happenstance. telephone rates reasonable Alessio, telephone rates for preserve affordable Dr. consumers, companies needed existing telecommunications previous unobtainable under freedom which was competitive Dr. Alessio also regulation by the State of Nebraska. telephone diversity in L.B. 835 will foster belief that expressed his service, encourage competitors new market, availability efficiency and will advance to enter the throughout in telecommunications services Nebraska. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF THE PSC Attorney assignments The General’s first two of error relate IV, 20, application of Neb. Const. art. which outlines to the § authority the constitutional of the PSC: The powers and duties of such commission shall [the PSC] rates, regulation general include the service and control Legislature may provide by of common carriers as the law. But, legislation, specific in the absence of the commission powers perform shall exercise the the duties provision. enumerated in this Attorney unconstitutionally General that L.B. 835 claims authority regulate the PSC

divests of its rates because the act “specific legislation” by does not constitute which the Legislature may authority restrict the exercisable the PSC. authority telephone companies

PSC over is rooted legislative, judicial, during early and electoral activities 6, 1906, 1900s. In the election of November the forerunner of IV, 20, Neb. added Const. art. was amendment to the state § Constitution, Railway an amendment which created the “State authority regulate Commission” with “common carriers.” Comp. (1909). Stat. 421a enacted “creating defining Powers, statutes Duties and Railway of the State Qualifications Commission” and which telephone companies included within the definition of See, also, (1913). “common carriers.” Rev. Stat. Co., County Neb. 140, 144, 158 Marquis Telephone v. Polk 100 927, 6124, (1916): “[B]y 1913, N.W. 928 section Rev. St. the expressly term ‘common carrier’ is made telephone to include companies.” telephone PSC control over rates and service of companies repeatedly recognized by See, has been this court. Co., Hooper Telephone Telephone Co. v. Nebraska 96 Neb. 245, (1914); Marquis County 147 N.W. 674 Telephone v. Polk Co., supra; Telephone Farmers & Merchants Co. v. Orleans Club, Community 633, 218 (1928); 116Neb. N.W. 583 Block v. Co., 531, 534, 312, Lincoln Tel. & Tel. 170 Neb. 103 N.W.2d (“Within meaning (1960) 314-15 the of the Constitution

275 telephone companies carriers”). are common PSC, establishing

Before the constitutional amendment the Legislature repository was the sole for control over telephone company rates. constitutional amendments of regulatory and 1906 1907extended to the PSC the which previously only by Legislature. Marquis was exercisable v. Co., County Telephone supra. Polk stated,

Briefly railway commission is created [PSC] 20, IV, granted section article It Constitution. powers regulation rates, and duties which include the service, general and control of common carriers as Legislature. directed In a field where the acted, Legislature has not the commission is authorized to powers exercise perform and duties enumerated means, provision. course, the constitutional This Legislature may properly specific legislation enact limiting scope powers. of the commission’s Freight, 280, Union Co. v. Bee Line Motor 150 Neb. Transfer 283, 363, See, State, also, 34 N.W.2d (1948). 365 ex rel. Co., Clarke, 566, Missouri P. R. v. 98 Neb. 153 N.W. 623 Co., (1915); 229, 171 In re Lincoln Traction 103Neb. N.W. 192 (1919); ledge Co., Black Independent Telephone v. Farmers 105 713, Neb. 181 N.W. (1921); Chicago Ry. 709 State v. & N. W. Co., 970, Harris, (1947); Neb. 25 N.W.2d 824 Dahlsten v. 714, 191 Neb. 217 N.W.2d (1974). specific As a result of legislative action, right by prescribe has the law to how the proceed authority may

commission shall and what it regulation general exercise in the and control of common Therefore, specific legislation carriers. when is enacted thereto, upon subject legislation relation such preempts occupied thereby prescribes the field so powers controls duties of the commission.

Chicago Ry. County Dodge County, & N. W. Co. v. Board 648, 653, See, also, (1947). 148 Neb. 28 N.W.2d State Railway Ramsey, ex rel. State Commission v. 151 Neb. (“The (1949) 37 N.W.2d commission is a [PSC]

regulatory body origin of constitutional not amenable legislative interruption powers or limitation of its status or by legislation

except specific Although . . the PSC anis regulatory Constitution, independent body under the Nebraska jurisdiction regulate PSC to common be carriers restricted by Legislature through “specific legislation.” Neb. Const. IV, art. 20. § undoubtedly power.

L.B. 835 restricts the PSC’s For that reason, IV, 20, validity under Neb. Const. art. of L.B. 835 question “general” turns on the whether the act constitutes or “specific” legislation. Railway As noted in State ex State rel. Ramsey, supra: Commission v. right regulate Legislature may “as” the provide right regulate

means the in the manner in which the Legislature provides. . . . “specific” The word in the phrase “in specific legislation” the absence of is synonymous “particular.” with the word implies The term a definite legislation restriction on the kind and extent of permissible over common carriers which by Legislature. J., [specific] It is defined in Specific, p. 58 C. “Definite, definite; 826 as making follows: or limited or precise; restricted; precisely tending formulated or specify particular. Although or make the term is a relative one, definite, it is limited particular, precise to a thing, or very opposite ‘general’.” and hence is the of It was not by intended unlimited, use of these words to authorize broad, general legislation in reference control and regulation of common carriers. 344, 37

Id. at N.W.2d at 509. prior Our regarding interpretation decisions of Neb. Const. IV, 20, art. seem to draw a distinction between statutes Legislature which the attempted regulation to transfer agency common carriers to an distinct from the PSC and Legislature statutes which the “occupies itself the field” and becomes, effect, regulatory body which exercises control over common carriers. The constitutionally cannot jurisdiction divest the PSC of over a class common carriers by vesting governmental agency, body government, government, except Legislature, branch of with control over the class of Railway common carriers. State rel. State ex Ramsey, supra (unconstitutional legislative Commission v. attempt Department to vest the with Nebraska Aeronautics by air”); to “control Rivett & common carriers Lumber Co., Chicago v. 102 Neb. N.W. Coal Co. & N. W.R. (1918) (statute designed produce reasonable rail service by did not authorize the court to exercise control over service However, carrier). legislative railroad as a common act or may constitutionally jurisdiction statute divest the PSC of over through Legislature, common carriers to the extent that the specific legislation, preempted has the PSC in control of See, Rodgers Railway common carriers. v. Nebraska State Commission, 832, 844, 800, (1938) 134 Neb. N.W. (“[T]he plenary power railway may only the commission be has, legislature by curtailed or specific diminished where the legislation, occupied Ry. field”); Chicago the State v. & N. W. Co., supra (“The legislative at 25 N.W.2d at 828 act under clearly deprives Railway consideration the Nebraska State any power Commission of occupies to act to the extent that it field”). Thus, Legislature may constitutionally while the occupy a regulatory field, thereby specifically and preemptively excluding the PSC from some control over a class of common carriers, Legislature absolutely totally cannot and abandon or constitutionally regulatory abolish conferred control over legislation common carriers. For example, which directs that the PSC constitutionally granted cannot exercise power its over particular carriers, common carrier or a class of common or which dictates regulatory that the shall not enact concerning statutes a common carrier or class of common carriers, IV, violates Neb. Const. art. 20. If such § regulatory abandonment or abolition of were control permitted, protection by afforded to Nebraska citizens constitutionally empowered created and PSC would cease to IV, 20, exist. Neb. requires Const. art. power that the § regulate common carriers exist either in the PSC or Legislature. totally jurisdiction

L.B. 835 does not divest the PSC of over companies, completely preclude telecommunications the PSC’s regulation of companies, telecommunications or transfer regulatory governmental agency, body control to a Legislature. government except

government, branch of or Instead, and manner which L.B. 835 restricts situations may regulatory power over rates of the PSC exercise its Regarding companies. basic local telecommunications service, exchange expressly precisely L.B. 835 and delineates its the situations and manner in which the PSC exercise 3(3) (7) L.B. power in relation to its duties. See § calls, however, Concerning (§ 86-803(3) (7)). intrastate toll completely regulatory of its control L.B. 835 divests PSC constitutionality 3(1) (§ 86-803(1)). over rates. L.B. regulatory power depends on of these restrictions on the PSC’s specific legislation either the characterization of statute as general legislation. authority Although over L.B. 835 restricts the PSC’s companies, rates set telecommunications the act leaves intact quality provided PSC control over the of service suppliers, retains the PSC’s entry marketplace. 3(6) allow into and exit from the 835, (§ 86-803(6)); (§§ 86-806). L.B. 5 and 6 86-805 and §§ Thus, “investigate the PSC will and resolve subscriber service, concerning quality complaints of telecommunications 835, deposits, and L.B. subscriber disconnection service.” 3(6) (§ 86-803(6)). complaint If informal resolution of the § may accomplished, petition not the customer file a with the PSC, hearing which will then hold on the customer’s may granting complaint, and enter an order such relief as the necessary. Furthermore, empowered PSC deems the PSC is entry interexchange” control into the “inter LATA market is, through may process, the “certificate” that the PSC company supplied authorize a telecommunications which has requisite interexchange” “inter LATA supply information to 835, (§ 86-805). L.B. The PSC also service. retains § power to determine whether and when a telecommunications may company abandon or discontinue service to a local exchange 6(§ 86-806). area. L.B. § report annually requires L.B. 835 further that the PSC to the legislation, any, if Legislature suggest additional which (§4 accomplish goals 86-804). of the act. L.B. § Legislature The not abandoned or abolished all PSC has Rather, regulation through companies. of telecommunications regulatory L.B. has restricted or limited the concerning provided of the PSC rates and has a means system regulation may which the evaluated of limited rate be Legislature. preserves 4 (§ 86-804). The act regulatory jurisdiction regarding quality the PSC’s of service and, therefore, entry into the telecommunications market regulatory power telephone does not over divest PSC of its companies. provisions concerning The L.B. 835 rate review specific in the various telecommunications markets are legislation general. rather than hold L.B. 835 Wetherefore constitutionally jurisdiction divests the PSC of rate review over interexchange telephone intraLATA and interLATA intrastate service, constitutionally jurisdiction limits PSC rate review exchange over local rates. service IV, 20, by

L.B. 835 does not violate Neb. Const. art. nullifying jurisdiction PSC over Rather,

companies. specific legislation the act constitutes prescribing the method and manner in which the PSC will regulatory concerning telephone exercise its activities concluded, companies. correctly The court and we also district conclude, specific legislation that L.B. 835 is which constitutionally regulatory power pursuant restricts PSC’s to the Nebraska Constitution.

PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS FOR TELEPHONE

SUBSCRIBERS Attorney General also contends that L.B. 835 unconstitutionally process telephone denies due subscribers regarding proceedings telephone PSC for review of a days company’s (1) rates and maintains that the 60 allotted signatures necessary challenge a gather subscribers to constitutionally (2) insufficient and that proposed rate is ratepayers’ filing 90-day period prescribed between the hearing provide adequate not complaint and the PSC’s does prepare opposition proposal. to the rate time for subscribers to 835, 3(3) (§ 86-803(3)). See L.B. legislative carrier is a act.

Setting a rate for a common Producers Assn. v. All Nebraska Limestone Nebraska 280

Railroads, 786, Bard v. Cox (1959); N.W.2d 331 168 Neb. 97 Omaha, 880, Inc., (1987). N.W.2d 4 On 226 Neb. 416 Cable of legislatively determined rate was ground “unreasonable, “confiscatory” arbitrary capricious,” or Before courts have invalidated rates set for a common carrier. 1975, only successfully challenged had rates common carriers which denied a reasonable return on investment in the carrier. Co., See, City Sidney, Nat. Gas Inc. v. Kansas-Nebraska of Co., Myers (1970); Neb. 181 N.W.2d 682 v. Blair Tel. Inc., (1975); K N Energy, Neb. 230 N.W.2d Reimer v. 142, 388 (1986). 223 Neb. N.W.2d 479 Beginning Myers, supra, recognized with this court has apparent species protectable property ratepayers of interest in Myers, Telephone relative to common carriers. Blair Company appealed company from the PSC’s order that the partially overcharges lower its rates and return attributable to company’s inadequate company challenged service. The ground “confiscatory new rate on the that it was so as utility deprive property compensation.” Myers without v. Co., supra Blair Tel. at N.W.2d at 195-96. The court confiscatory applied held that the PSC cannot set a rate to the common carrier and further noted: thereto, however, corollary utility

As a neither should the permitted be the ratepayers’ confiscate fees without giving reasonably adequate service for which those permit rates were set. The commission can no more utility confiscatory to have for the it rates service performs utility compel provide than it can service just equitable without As a matter of compensation. justice, utility elemental consumers services are entitled protection against to the property same confiscation of arbitrary utility part action on the as are the utilities. Unfortunately, Myers Id. at 230 N.W.2d at 196. court statutory right- did not particular indicate the constitutional or protected against of a customer a common carrier’s “confiscatory” Myers rate. The court’s focus on confiscation however, property, suggests right that the to a fair and “takings reasonable rate of return have been based on the clause” U.S. Const. V U.S. Constitution. amends. I, See, also, Neb. Const. art. 21. XIV. Myers was telephone ratepayers afforded protection

The Energy, K N gas in Reimer v. extended to natural customers Inc., which gas company, supra, ratepayers when of a natural city gas for the in which supplier the franchised of natural was lived, challenged company’s imposition of a ratepayers the the charge. After the $4 customer service per month minimum (subject gas company’s the demurrer district court sustained the capacity to maintain jurisdiction, plaintiff’s matter lack of the suit, action) and dismissed and failure to state a cause of jurisdiction over action, appealed. upholding ratepayers the and, citing Myers v. Blair reversed after dispute, this court Co., supra, Tel. held power protect supplier

just as the district court has it municipal deprives which of a gas of natural from action so, too, reasonable, rate, fair, does the compensatory and of such protect court have the a consumer district unreasonable, confiscatory arbitrary, gas and from rate. Inc., 145, 388 at 482. K N Energy, supra

Reimer v. at N.W.2d rely Myers did court on a lack In neither nor Reimer this challenge process ratepayer’s for a procedural due as basis rate, against recognize protection but did to a common carrier’s ratepayer has had confiscatory notwithstanding that a rate Thus, to the rate set. opportunity opposition to be heard in against Reimer, Myers protection in Nebraska after and substantive due confiscatory rate more a matter of seemed process. process procedural than due only involving process due concerns Nebraska decision Omaha, rights” v. Cox Cable regarding “ratepayers’ is Bard

Inc., city granted a franchise supra. Cable had been Cox Bard, services. city’sresidents with cable television supply service, brought suit cable television a subscriber of city, by television rates set claimed that the cable Cable, The district charged by were excessive. accordingly Cox filed jurisdiction) (subject demurrers matter court sustained Cable, and, on of the action city after dismissal and Cox demurrers, appealed. We summarized Bard account of the city: by the challenge approved to the rates Bard’s however, alleges, Bard further that Cox Cable’s rates process violate the due clause of the 14th amendment to provisions U.S. Constitution and several Constitution, including process Nebraska the due clause I, contained in article thereof. The constitutional argument she process makes limits itself to those due clauses, we, therefore, analysis likewise limit our process due concerns. setting

Because regulated industry of rates for a is a legislative act, the courts of this state power lack the to set do, rates. however, The courts [Citation have omitted.] legislatively to review set rates to determine they arbitrary whether are so and unreasonable as to be confiscatory and unconstitutionally thus property take process without due law. [Citations omitted.] of Thus, in the absence overriding law, of federal district possesses subject court jurisdiction matter to determine whether Cox arbitrary Cable’s rates are so unreasonable as confiscatory. to be (Emphasis supplied.) Omaha, Inc., Bard v. Cox Cable 226 of 880, 886, Neb. 416 N.W.2d (1987). holding After that federal preclude law did not a state court’s review of Cox rates, Cable’s analyzed this allegations court in Bard’s petition and allegations concluded that the

support an inference that Cox Cable’s subscribers are paying a rate charge which something includes a for that is being not that, delivered them extent, to that arbitrary rate is and unreasonable such as to be confiscatory and therefore violation process of the due clauses of the state and federal Constitutions. 889, 416 N.W.2d at

226 Neb. at 10. Bard, however, definitively we did not characterize the process due procedural concern as analysis substantive. The in Bard seems to focus on the content legislative enactment, is, that city, rates set rather than the procedure by which the rates were set inasmuch as Bard’s claim did alleged notice, not relate to an lack of or a denial of an adequate opportunity oppose rate, but did relate to an imposed alleged rate to be confiscatory. unreasonable and right undoubtedly have the Although telephone subscribers unreasonable, confiscatory” “arbitrary, free from to be of those required implementation for when action is rates state on the rates, right substantive limitation interpret we as a exercising ratesetting entity governmental power of Thus, to set a rate the state is not entitled function. taking property which effectuates a

telephone service belongs property whether the taken just compensation, without decisions As a trio of telephone company or to a subscriber. to a Reimer, do rights,” Myers, and Bard concerning “ratepayers’ regulation. process in rate procedural relate to due not decisions, However, have a ratepayers reason those rates for legitimate claim of entitlement to reasonable ratepayers. See supplied service to the Roth, 564, 577, Ct. Regents Board v. 408 U.S. 92 S. 2d (1972): L. Ed. benefit, clearly property person interest in a a

To have it. He must have more than an abstract need or desire for expectation of it. He must have more than a unilateral must, instead, legitimate entitlement to it. have a claim of property to purpose It is a of the ancient institution of rely daily protect upon people those claims which in their lives, arbitrarily reliance that must not be undermined. It purpose right hearing constitutional provide opportunity person for a to vindicate those claims.

Thus, rate, right right ratepayer’s a to a fair and reasonable a court, emerged properly which has from the decisions of this is “property” protected classified as a entitlement the due process of the U.S. and Nebraska Constitutions. See clauses Roth, Regents supra. Board v. of constitutionally holding ratepayers have a Our that rates, telephone cognizable property entitlement to reasonable government necessary implement those when involvement is to rates, only process whether the due resolves the threshold issue question the facts of this case. The applicable clause is to 835, our decisions process What is due? Before L.B. remains: ratesetting authority legislative clear that the of PSC is made exercised, character, which, effect of a properly in if has the 284 subject

statute on of reasonable rates. Nebraska Railroads Nebco, Inc., 322, Omaha v. 194 Neb. 231 N.W.2d 505 of Railroads, (1975); United Mineral Co. v. Products Nebraska 285, 121 (1963). 175Neb. N.W.2d 492 authority legislative ratemaking If the PSC’s in remains 835, after enactment have nature of customers no due process right hearing ratemaking to notice and on as a legislative process function. “There no due constitutional requirement hearing applicable legislative of notice and Boyle, 677, 679, 250 635, matters.” Barnett v. Neb. N.W.2d 197 637 (1977). underlying recognize The rationale a refusal a right hearing legislative constitutional notice in matters expressed by Supreme was first U.S. Court Bi-Metallic Colorado, 141, 60 441, 445, 36 Co. v. L. U.S. S. Ct. Ed. 372 Court, Holmes, (1915), speaking when Justice for the stated: Where a applies rule of conduct to more than a few people impracticable every it is that one should have a direct voice in adoption. its The Constitution does not public require meeting all be done in acts to town or an assembly of the whole. General within the statutes state passed are person property that affect the or individuals, point ruin, giving sometimes to the without rights them chance to be Their protected heard. are in the way only they society, be in complex can their remote, power, immediate or over who those make the rule.

Accord, Railway Co., United States v. Florida East Coast U.S. 93 S. Ct. L. Ed. (1973); 2d 223 Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U.S. 64 S. Ct. 88 Ed. 892 (1944). L.

Only governmental adjudicative subject decisions nature are procedural to the process requirement due of notice and legislative hearing; exempt action is from the constitutional protection procedural process. Cty. Ventura, due Horn v. 605, 156 718, 596 Rptr. (1979). Cal. 3d Cal. P.2d 1134 government life, is most

It common for affect the liberty property of great people interest number of through legislative legislature its functions. When passes general persons, a law which affects a class of those persons procedural process have all received due —the

285 challenges to laws must be legislative process. The such compatibility with based on their substantive Similarly, guarantees. an administrative constitutional legislative that are of a or agency make decisions agency general rulemaking character. When promulgates generalized rules there is no constitutional right hearing specific a individual. However when to a might adjudicative agency makes rules that be termed interests, they very then group in that affect a defined granted persons representing those interests should be life, liberty safeguard procedure fair their some property. Rotunda, Nowak, Young,

J. R. & J. Constitutional Law 13.8 LULAC, See, also, (3d 1986). States v. at 485 ed. United (5th 1986) (“When legislature F.2d enacts a Cir. law, agency adopts regulation, general or a state affects persons, persons procedural have received class of all of those they process by legislative process itself and have no due See, further, Ramsey, right attention”). individual Nolan v. 1979). (5th 597 F.2d 577 Cir. West, City v. United Tel. Co. Scottsbluff 229, 240, noting the (1960),

Neb. N.W.2d 18-19 after function, ratesetting this court legislative nature of the PSC’s held that required given by the plaintiff

no notice to was to be legislatively permitting commission before it acted [telephone company] to revise and amend its defendant pro regulations permit it to collect rata rate rules and city occupation within the tax from its subscribers city specifically required imposed by the unless a statute notice.

Thus, telephone subscriber had before enactment of L.B. hearing regarding process right due to notice and no setting ratemaking action in rates was because the PSC’s legislative as a function. classified that the PSC’s function Attorney General concedes

The Attorney legislative. was ratemaking before L.B. 835 contends, however, changes in PSC review that the General of the PSC’s altered the nature L.B. 835 have effectuated merely disagree. L.B. 835 We regulation process. role in the rate perform its the PSC will in which prescribes the situations modify function, the nature of and does not ratemaking in cases before the commission. by the PSC rate inquiry made 835, the PSC’s of L.B. and after enactment Both before “fair, just, what rates are ratemaking to determine in is function (4), 835, (7) (§ 86-803(3), 3(3), (4), and and reasonable.” performs the fact that the PSC a of L.B. (7)). As result only does not ratemaking in limited circumstances function its power. the PSC’s change legislative character of affect or PSC, rate, by a affects determined Because a reasonable citizens, a rather limited large Nebraska and not number of individuals, the PSC’s identifiable specifically number of Furthermore, legislative! activity properly characterized as is a rate does not resolve determination of a reasonable PSC’s Rather, PSC parties. identified past dispute between merely a rate for the a reasonable rate sets determination of itself, by by the PSC a Whether activated future. subscribers, by company’s company, or ratemaking legislative under L.B. 835. the PSC’s remains grants Attorney next contends that L.B. 835 General rates, hearing regarding right right subscribers a to notice concept of due comport with the constitutional which must 805, 809, Kelley, Neb. 255 N.W.2d process. In State v. no although held that a criminal defendant has (1977), we right appeal, “when the Nebraska process due right, procedure grants appeal as a matter of Constitution concepts federal constitutional must accord with the afforded Illinois, 351 U.S. 76 S. Ct. process.” due See v. Griffin state-granted right be (1956) (a must 100 L. Ed. 891 Kelley and process protection). due While accorded Griffin matters, principle in process due criminal concerned equally compelling civil announced in those cases seems grants where the state its citizens a Wetherefore hold that cases. hearing matter in a statutory right on a to notice state, making legislative determinations proceeding, right, procedure property must adhere to a affecting a citizen’s process requirements with the of the due comports which Constitutions. of the U.S. and Nebraska clauses case, process of the state and present In the the due clauses grant obligate Legislature federal constitutions did not hearing for a rate telecommunications subscribers notice and However, the state conferred determination the PSC. when ratemaking right hearing regarding the to notice and such process, obligated was to assure that Attorney process fundamentally meaningful. The fair and by unfair process General contends that L.B. 835 offends due 60-day obtaining signatures period time limits in the on petition trigger ratemaking subscriber-initiated the PSC 90-day hearing petition and in the after the subscriber’s has been company application filed or a telecommunications has filed an 835, 3(3) percent. for a rate increase in excess of 10 See L.B. (§ 86-803(3)). “ ‘ * jhg process guarantee due clause does not to a any particular

citizen of a State form or method of state procedure. requirements Its are satisfied if he has notice, opportunity reasonable and reasonable to be heard defence, present regard being and to his claim or due had proceedings to the nature of the and the character of the ” rights by which be affected it.” ...’ Omaha, 589, 591, City Hroch v. 226 Neb. 413 N.W.2d of (1987) (quoting City Scottsbluff, Webber v. 155Neb. of 50 N.W.2d 533 (1951)).

We procedure provides believe that the outlined in L.B. 835 adequate opportunity for telecommunications customers to protect property their entitlement to a reasonable through telecommunications participation rate subscriber in ratemaking hearings. the PSC largest For the two Nebraska, suppliers namely, telecommunications NWB and LT&T, 60-day petition process the for subscriber initiation of requires daily PSC review signatures that customers obtain 115 petition on the pertaining signatures to NWB and 88 on the petition pertaining availability potential to LT&T. Given the is, signatories, that all the telecommunications subscribers rate, by proposed Attorney affected the General has failed 60-day to demonstrate that the time limit is unreasonable process. due constitutional context of

Also, Attorney General has failed to demonstrate 90-day period inadequate preparation ratepayer for is hearing.

opposition presented be at the PSC Due to to task, ratemaking as a legislative nature of the PSC’s consideration, need not confer on matter of constitutional right at ratepayers present to evidence or relevant information hearing. Notwithstanding complexity the PSC of issues PSC, 90-day frequently involved in a rate case before the period ostensibly gather taxpayers sufficient for challenge telephone company’s proposed information to rate and, therefore, gives opportunity consumers a “reasonable present opposition proposed be heard” and their to the rate. 60-day gather signatures, period Combined with the group prepare consumer could have as much as 5 months to Furthermore, hearing. authority the PSC rate the PSC has require company a telecommunications to submit its financial undoubtedly reports, inquiry which would facilitate into proposed by reasonableness rates company. In view the telecommunications PSC’s role in “fair, protecting public assuring that the interest rates are just, reasonable,” we are unable to conclude that the 90-day period unconstitutionally prescribed L.B. 835 deprives process. subscribers of due Neither the U.S. Constitution nor the Nebraska Constitution requires that granted any telecommunications subscribers be procedural protection beyond additional that embodied in L.B. Attorney 835. The General’s claim that L.B. 835 violates is, telephone rights therefore, process subscribers’ due without merit.

L.B. 835AND THE STATE’SPOLICE POWER Attorney The General’s final contention is L.B. that 835 is unconstitutional because the act real bears no or substantial health, morals, relationship general to the or welfare of the and, therefore, public, is a valid of police not exercise the state’s power. police power sovereignty,

The is an attribute of state and, within the limitations of state and federal Constitutions, exercise, may, the state in its enact laws for safety, health, morals, promotion public the of generally public for the welfare. [Citation omitted.] public Legislature protect the the adopted Measures safety must public the and welfare have health and secure proposed ends. relation those some reasonable [Citation omitted.]

Finocchiaro, Comm., 217 Neb. Liq. Inc. Nebraska Cont. v. Thus, when a (1984). 351 N.W.2d is involved in right suspect classification not fundamental or police legislative act is valid exercise of a state’s legislation, a a legitimate reasonably to a the is related power if act Pharr, (Colo. People v. 696 P.2d 235 governmental interest. See 1984). legislative may provide a language

The enactment of through objective to be achieved the manifest indication of Omaha, legislation. City v. 197 Neb. See Schaffer of However, expression or of (1977). N.W.2d 764 with without legislatively duty objective, avowed court has the determine whether the has exercised state’s reasonably power general in a police manner related to health, morals, legislative or If the welfare the state’s citizens. governmental well-being in enactment furthers a interest citizenry, upheld regardless the act must be of whether the Legislature contemplated the exact nature of the benefit legislation. accorded Attorney argument no General has made

endangers right suspect a fundamental results Therefore, police act is a exercise of classification. valid reasonably general legislation if the is related to the people welfare of Nebraska. again setting conflicting forth detail

Without side, testimony experts by each presented of the two economic legitimate reasonably we find related to that L.B. 835 Dr. Alessio’s governmental interests of the State Nebraska. structure before testimony regulatory indicates that Nebraska’s existing telecommunications provide L.B. 835 did not flexibility companies respond to an pricing with the needed flexibility, increasingly market. Without this competitive lose, likely in fact companies would lost, a number of their previously have revenue derived from

larger Furthermore, L.B. subscribers. 835 allows PSC remove, “limit, regulatory requirements or waive for companies telecommunications when it that determines competition will serve the purposes public same as interest regulation.” (§ 86-807). L.B. § legislature determining A has discretion in what measures are reasonably necessary protect public health, safety, welfare, and, reviewing act, legislative a court should not judgment Legislature merely substitute its own for that of the may Legislature because the court believe that acted unwisely Yu, or improvidently. (Fla. See State v. 400 So. 2d 762 By 1981). enacting Legislature L.B. policy has made a pronouncement flexibility competition of free preferable regulation sometimes controlling as a method of say telecommunications rates. Wecannot that this conclusion is fundamentally so flawed as to constitute unconstitutional police power. exercise of the state’s

CONCLUSION Attorney The General has failed to demonstrate the unconstitutionality legislation of L.B. 835. The not does IV, 20, contravene Neb. Const. art. facially nor does the act deny process due of law for telecommunications customers. Finally, the act is a valid exercise of police power. the state’s Therefore, we conclude that L.B. 835 is constitutional in all challenged respects. Consequently, judgment of the district court is affirmed. Affirmed. J., dissenting.

Grant, I may dissent. Laissez-faire be an acceptable doctrine in some government regulation, theories I but do not think the Nebraska permits Constitution that approach setting rates companies in Nebraska.

I Laws, feel that 1986Neb. codified as Neb. Rev. Stat. seq. (Reissue 1987), 86-801 et §§ violates Neb. Const. art. IV, 20, provides: which

There shall be a Public Service Commission .... powers and duties of such commission shall include the regulation rates, general service and control provide law. as the common carriers But, specific legislation, the commission in the absence of powers perform the duties shall exercise the provision. in enumerated this provides: “Telecommunications portion

A 86-803 § not, however, regulation subject any be to rate companies shall subject provisions not as to by the and shall be to commission 1 and 6.” I charges prescribed Chapter in articles rates and L.B. 835 renders the whole of provision believe that unconstitutional. IV, 20, is history adoption the of Neb. Const. art. §

The Ramsey, Railway Commission v. out in ex rel. State set State history Included in that is (1949). Neb. 37 N.W.2d 502 151 the court’s conclusion: Nebraska language finally adopted

The the [in positively provides powers that of the the Constitution] regulation of all the include the commission shall Legislature to right with of the enumerated matters the in which the commission shall control the manner duties, or to enter perform independent its constitutional “specific legislation.” The the to the extent of field itself the logical, inescapable, if not that conclusion people Legislature and the proposed, would not have the knowingly approved, have an addition to would not only to creating power a commission with Constitution for regulate to the extent and and control common carriers by provided permitted Legislature---- the the time 343, 37 N.W.2d at 508. Neb. 151 at “specific” construing meaning “general” as

In the and IV, 20, Ramsey “It the court stated: used in Neb. Const. art. to authorize by not the use of these words was intended broad, unlimited, general legislation in reference to control 151 Neb. at 37 regulation carriers.” and of common N.W.2d at 509. unlimited, broad, my 835 constitutes judgment,

In free purporting general legislation any regulation. companies from rate State, R. ex Missouri P. rel. Ramsey opinion

The referred to case, In Co., 566, 153 (1915). 623 Clarke, N.W. v. 98 Neb. 292 Legislature, (commonly statute called “Two-cent Act”), per

Fare fixed a maximum rate mile had cents then, later, passenger days railroad rates and had enacted necessary granting power statute “to fix all rates, charges regulation govern regulate freight and passenger railway companies tariffs of ...” Rev. Stat. (1913). relator contended the later statute beyond authorized the commission to raise the rates cents. held contrary, stating: general The Clarke court to the “The railway commission, applied state passenger as traffic, is limited to rates below the maximum fixed two-cent fare law.” at my 98 Neb. 153 N.W. at 625. opinion, holding this “specific legislation,” determines that law, setting this area of the is the of rates not outlawing regulation. of rate Ramsey

I construe the and Clarke cases mean that if the Legislature preempts by setting rates, field specific rate it “specific enacted legislation” has IV, referred into article my In judgment, authority 20. specific § to set a rate does authority Legislature not extend say of the “no one shall regulate Constitution, rates.” In their people of the State of expressed Nebraska have their decision that either Legislature regulate or the commission shall the rates of common carriers. I do not believe that constitutional directive be legislative can thwarted abolishing action regulations rate specific as to common carriers. enacting seq., 86-801 et attempted §§ has repeal IV, Neb. Const. art. 20. I do not believe the

Legislature can do that. I judgment would reverse the trial court and hold that 86-801 to 86-811 are §§ Const, IV, unconstitutional as violating Neb. art. 20. Boslaugh J., j oins in this dissent. .

Case Details

Case Name: State Ex Rel. Spire v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.

Court Name: Nebraska Supreme Court

Date Published: Sep 1, 1989

Citation: 445 N.W.2d 284

Docket Number: 87-425

Court Abbreviation: Neb.