1. Title to act
2. Acts containing more than one subject
3. Independent complete acts
4. Amendatory acts
5. Legislative procedure
1. Title to act
The Supreme Court will not strike down legislation as violative of this section if the title calls attention to the subject matter of the bill, and the portion of the bill challenged is germane to the purpose announced in the title. One does not have standing to complain that a statute is unconstitutional unless he is injuriously affected thereby. Blackledge v. Richards, 194 Neb. 188, 231 N.W.2d 319 (1975).
Purpose of the title is to describe the subject not to synopsize the contents or every conceivable consequence. Title found sufficient. Hall v. Simpson, 184 Neb. 762, 171 N.W.2d 805 (1969).
Bill providing procedure for withdrawal from area vocational technical schools did not violate this section. Chaloupka v. Area Vocational Technical School No. 2, 184 Neb. 196, 165 N.W.2d 719 (1969).
Title of act need not refer to provisions of the act being amended if the nature of the legislation contained or the nature of the changes or additions made by it are sufficiently indicated. Tom & Jerry, Inc. v. Nebraska Liquor Control Commission, 183 Neb. 410, 160 N.W.2d 232 (1968).
In enacting act increasing penalty for assault upon guard by inmate of penal institution, the title of the act did not violate this section. State v. Lovell, 181 Neb. 401, 149 N.W.2d 46 (1967).
Title to Industrial Development Act of 1961 was sufficient, and act was not broader than title. State ex rel. Meyer v. County of Lancaster, 173 Neb. 195, 113 N.W.2d 63 (1962).
Title of amendatory act must give reasonable notice of the general subject upon which it is proposed to legislate. State ex rel. Bottolfson v. School Board of Sch. Dist. No. R1 of Cedar and Dixon Counties, 170 Neb. 417, 103 N.W.2d 146 (1960).
Amendment to Installment Loan Act was broader than title and was violative of this section. Thompson v. Commercial Credit Equipment Corp., 169 Neb. 377, 99 N.W.2d 761 (1959).
Title to amendatory act relating to taxation of motor vehicles was sufficient. Peterson v. Hancock, 166 Neb. 637, 90 N.W.2d 298 (1958).
Defect in title was cured by incorporation of statute in 1943 revision. Peterson v. Vasak, 162 Neb. 498, 76 N.W.2d 420 (1956).
Title to act dealing with depopulated school districts was sufficient. Schutte v. Schmitt, 162 Neb. 162, 75 N.W.2d 656 (1956).
Defect in title to legislative act was cured by adoption by Legislature of general revision act. McGraw Electric Co. v. Lewis & Smith Drug Co., Inc., 159 Neb. 703, 68 N.W.2d 608 (1955).
Title to Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act was good. Hadden v. Aitken, 156 Neb. 215, 55 N.W.2d 620 (1952).
Where bill contains but one subject and that subject is clearly expressed in the title, constitutional requirements have been met, even though title contains duplicitous or extraneous provisions not necessary to its validity. Midwest Popcorn Co. v. Johnson, 152 Neb. 867, 43 N.W.2d 174 (1950).
Legislative act defining offense of foeticide is constitutional. Hans v. State, 147 Neb. 67, 22 N.W.2d 385 (1946).
Where title to amendatory act indicates the subject of the proposed legislation, and the provisions of the act are germane to the subject matter of the original section proposed to be changed, the act is not violative of this section. County of Dawson v. South Side Irr. Co., 146 Neb. 512, 20 N.W.2d 387 (1945).
It is not required that title be a synopsis of the act. Maher v. State, 144 Neb. 463, 13 N.W.2d 641 (1944).
If act has but one general object, no matter how broad, and contains no matter not germane thereto, and title fairly expresses the subject of the bill, it does not violate constitutional provisions. Beisner v. Cochran, 138 Neb. 445, 293 N.W. 289 (1940).
Statute defining ice cream was not vulnerable to objection act was broader than its title. State v. McCosh, 134 Neb. 780, 279 N.W. 775 (1938).
A title is not necessary to an act providing for submission of a proposed amendment to Constitution, and will be treated as null and void. Swanson v. State, 132 Neb. 82, 271 N.W. 264 (1937).
Title, "An act relating to municipal courts," is sufficient to include a section providing for eligibility of judges of such courts. Spier v. Thomas, 131 Neb. 579, 269 N.W. 61 (1936).
Act providing for payment of delinquent taxes by annual installments was not broader than title. Steinacher v. Swanson, 131 Neb. 439, 268 N.W. 317 (1936).
Act providing for adoption of managerial form of county government was broader than title. State ex rel. O'Connor v. Tusa, 130 Neb. 528, 265 N.W. 524 (1936).
In determining whether an act amending a previous act is broader than its title, court will consider the titles to both the amending and amended acts. Miller v. Iowa-Nebraska Light & Power Co., 129 Neb. 757, 262 N.W. 855 (1935).
A proviso attached to an appropriation, subject of which proviso is not referred to in title of act, is invalid. State ex rel. National Surety Corp. v. Price, 129 Neb. 433, 261 N.W. 894 (1935).
Title reading, "to provide punishment for one who makes statements or representations with intent to defraud," is not broad enough to include imposition of penalty on one who does not know that statements are false but had ground to believe they were false. Joseph v. State, 128 Neb. 824, 260 N.W. 803 (1935).
Title of independent act authorizing construction of sewers and providing that owners or occupants of premises be charged for the services, and to raise money, is broad enough to include legislation authorizing issuance of bonds secured by property and revenue of sewerage system. State ex rel. City of Columbus v. Price, 127 Neb. 132, 254 N.W. 889 (1934).
Act relating to irrigation, flood control, storage of waters, and to generation, distribution, transmission, sale and purchase of electrical energy was valid. State ex rel. Loseke v. Fricke, 126 Neb. 736, 254 N.W. 409 (1934).
Act providing for erecting bridges over irrigation ditches on public roads was invalid to extent it was broader than title. State ex rel. County of Dawson v. Dawson County Irr. Co., 125 Neb. 836, 252 N.W. 320 (1934).
Where title to act provided for the regulation and licensing of traffic in tobacco, it was not unconstitutional as a revenue measure, a subject not mentioned in title. Nash-Finch Co. v. Beal, 124 Neb. 835, 248 N.W. 374 (1933).
Nepotism law was void because provisions for penalty were not embraced in title. Wayne County v. Steele, 121 Neb. 438, 237 N.W. 288 (1931).
Act providing for control and eradication of disease among domestic animals was not invalid as containing more than one subject not clearly expressed in title. State ex rel. Sorensen v. Knudtsen, 121 Neb. 270, 236 N.W. 696 (1931).
Title designating act as establishing laws relating to civil government and administration thereof was broad enough to include provisions regulating banking. Westbrook v. State, 120 Neb. 625, 234 N.W. 579 (1931).
Securities law was not invalid because provision for burden of proof as to exemptions was not specifically referred to in title. Pandolfo v. State, 120 Neb. 616, 234 N.W. 483 (1931).
Where title fairly gives expression to general subject matter, act will not be held invalid as broader than title. Mehrens v. Bauman, 120 Neb. 110, 231 N.W. 701 (1930).
Title must be such as to give reasonable notice to members of Legislature and others interested, of the general subject upon which it is proposed to legislate. Appel Mercantile Co. v. Barker, 92 Neb. 669, 138 N.W. 1133 (1912).
If general purpose of act is expressed and matter contained in body is germane thereto, title is sufficient. State ex rel. Baughn v. Ure, 91 Neb. 31, 135 N.W. 224 (1912).
Title need not be abstract of bill, but it is sufficient if title indicates subject of proposed legislation. Nebraska Loan & Bldg. Assn. v. Perkins, 61 Neb. 254, 85 N.W. 67 (1901).
Title of act is part thereof and must clearly express subject matter. State v. Burlington & M. R. R. Co., 60 Neb. 741, 84 N.W. 254 (1901).
Purpose is to prevent subjects of different nature from being inserted under color of amendment. State ex rel. Graham v. Tibbets, 52 Neb. 228, 71 N.W. 990 (1897).
Provisions relating to title should be liberally construed to admit insertion in act of all provisions which, though not specifically expressed in title, are comprehended within objects and purposes of act, and all provisions germane and not foreign to expressed provisions in title. Affholder v. State ex rel. McMullen, 51 Neb. 91, 70 N.W. 544 (1897).
Provision as to title applies to amendatory acts as well as complete and independent acts. West Point Water Power & Land Improvement Co. v. State ex rel. Moodie, 49 Neb. 223, 68 N.W. 507 (1896).
2. Acts containing more than one subject
Act of Legislature authorizing city of primary class to annex contiguous or adjacent lands did not violate this section. Campbell v. City of Lincoln, 182 Neb. 459, 155 N.W.2d 444 (1968).
Nebraska Revenue Act of 1967 did not violate provision that no bill shall contain more than one subject. Anderson v. Tiemann, 182 Neb. 393, 155 N.W.2d 322 (1967).
Title of Blanket Mill Tax Levy Act was good and act was independent legislation. Peterson v. Hancock, 155 Neb. 801, 54 N.W.2d 85 (1952).
Statute prohibiting state and federal officers and employees from being delegates to county, district, and state political conventions contained but one subject which was clearly expressed in the title. State ex rel. Baldwin v. Strain, 152 Neb. 763, 42 N.W.2d 796 (1950).
Act relating to county jails and fees of sheriffs with reference to care of prisoners therein contained but one subject and was constitutional. Dorrance v. County of Douglas, 149 Neb. 685, 32 N.W.2d 202 (1948).
Statute relating to condemnation of public utilities is not violative of constitutional requirement of single subject clearly expressed in title. City of Mitchell v. Western Public Service Co., 124 Neb. 248, 246 N.W. 484 (1933).
Intangible tax statute was not invalid as containing more than one subject. Mehrens v. Greenleaf, 119 Neb. 82, 227 N.W. 325 (1929).
Act relating to recovery on forfeited recognizance was not void as containing more than one subject not clearly expressed in title. State v. Painter, 117 Neb. 42, 219 N.W. 794 (1928).
Statute entitled "An act to amend" certain sections "and to repeal" the same as then existing, was not broader than title. Conservative Sav. & L. Assn. of Omaha v. Anderson, 116 Neb. 627, 218 N.W. 423 (1928).
Including provision for drainage of subirrigated lands in act relating to organization of irrigation district does not violate requirement that bill shall contain only one subject to be expressed in title. State ex rel. Reed v. Farmers Irr. Dist., 116 Neb. 373, 217 N.W. 607 (1928).
Provisions for raising money by taxation, issuing bonds, and eminent domain, were not beyond scope of act "defining powers and government of light, heat and power districts." Elliott v. Wille, 112 Neb. 78, 200 N.W. 347 (1924).
Provision for housing municipal court in county courthouse was not beyond scope of act "to create municipal court," etc. State ex rel. City of Omaha v. Board of County Comrs. of Douglas County, 109 Neb. 35, 189 N.W. 639 (1922).
Where title of act refers to both relocation of county seats and county division, but body of act relates only to relocation, it is not invalid as containing two subjects. Murray v. Nelson, 107 Neb. 52, 185 N.W. 319 (1921).
Statute "relating to stealing, buying or concealing automobiles," was not invalid as containing more than one subject, although providing for rules of evidence, and for including more than one count in indictment. Birdhead v. State, 105 Neb. 296, 180 N.W. 583 (1920).
Act "to provide for county farm bureaus," was not invalid for containing more than one subject, though it contains provisions for employment and payment of county agent, duties of county board, etc. State ex rel. Hall County Farm Bureau v. Miller, 104 Neb. 838, 178 N.W. 846 (1920).
Including crime of buying or receiving stolen automobiles in act relating to larceny of motor vehicles was not more than one subject. Sandlovich v. State, 104 Neb. 169, 176 N.W. 81 (1920).
Act relating to rural school districts contained only one subject. Gauchat v. School Dist. No. 5 in Nemaha County, 101 Neb. 377, 163 N.W. 334 (1917).
Statute regulating licensing of persons practicing chiropody, chiropractic, and dentistry, was not invalid as containing more than one subject. Peet Stock Remedy Co. v. McMullen, 32 F.2d 669 (8th Cir. 1929).
3. Independent complete acts
If an act is complete and independent in itself it may incidentally amend, modify, or have impact upon provisions of existing statutes without violating this section. Aschenbrenner v. Nebraska P.P. Dist., 206 Neb. 157, 291 N.W.2d 720 (1980).
The independent act considered herein is not unconstitutional for failure to mention in the incidental provision for payment or exemption from payment of costs, nor for failing to refer to and repeal certain other statutes. State ex rel. Douglas v. Gradwohl, 194 Neb. 745, 235 N.W.2d 854 (1975).
L.B. 1357, Laws 1969, providing for natural resources districts was independent legislation and not violative of this section. Neeman v. Nebraska Nat. Resources Commission, 191 Neb. 672, 217 N.W.2d 166 (1974).
Act prohibiting merger of school districts in certain cases was complete and independent. Bodenstedt v. Rickers, 189 Neb. 407, 203 N.W.2d 110 (1972).
Nebraska Trust Deeds Act did not violate this section. Blair Co. v. American Savings Co., 184 Neb. 557, 169 N.W.2d 292 (1969).
Parking Authority Law was original and independent legislation and title to act was sufficient. Omaha Parking Authority v. City of Omaha, 163 Neb. 97, 77 N.W.2d 862 (1956).
Eminent domain procedure act sustained as constitutional. Jensen v. Omaha Public Power Dist., 159 Neb. 277, 66 N.W.2d 591 (1954).
Reclamation Act did not violate this section. Nebraska Mid-State Reclamation District v. Hall County, 152 Neb. 410, 41 N.W.2d 397 (1950).
General appropriation bill of 1945 sustained as constitutional. Rein v. Johnson, 149 Neb. 67, 30 N.W.2d 548 (1947).
An independent act may incorporate within itself by reference provisions of another existing act, and the effect is the same as though the statute or part adopted had been written into the adopting statute. Rocky Mountain Lines v. Cochran, 140 Neb. 378, 299 N.W. 596 (1941).
Housing authority acts of 1937 are independent and complete in themselves and hence not violative of constitutional provision. Lennox v. Housing Authority of City of Omaha, 137 Neb. 582, 290 N.W. 451 (1940).
If act is complete and independent in itself, it may amend or modify provisions of existing statutes without controverting the provisions of Constitution relating to amendments. Live Stock Nat. Bank v. Jackson, 137 Neb. 161, 288 N.W. 515 (1939); Hinman v. Temple, 133 Neb. 268, 274 N.W. 605 (1937).
Independent act, complete in itself, is not rendered amendatory because it refers to another act for procedure taken. Department of Banking v. Foe, 136 Neb. 422, 286 N.W. 264 (1939).
An independent legislative act covering the entire subject of legislation may change or repeal former enactments in conflict with new provisions. State ex rel. Kaspar v. Lehmkuhl, 127 Neb. 812, 257 N.W. 229 (1934).
Civil Administrative Code law was complete in itself, and not amendatory. Sheridan County v. Hand, 114 Neb. 813, 210 N.W. 273 (1926).
Act, complete in itself, which conflicts with prior statute but does not purport to amend it, is not invalid, but repeals earlier statute by implication. Drew v. Mumford, 114 Neb. 100, 206 N.W. 159 (1925).
Act defining and providing penalties for blackmail was complete act covering distinct crime, and not amendatory of statutes covering related offenses. McKenzie v. State, 113 Neb. 576, 204 N.W. 60 (1925).
Act relating to state mineral land leases was complete and not amendatory. Briggs v. Neville, 103 Neb. 1, 170 N.W. 188 (1918).
Mothers' Pension Law was complete and not amendatory of poor laws. Rumsey v. Saline County, 102 Neb. 302, 167 N.W. 66 (1918).
Act requiring county attorney to perform duties of coroner was complete, and its effect was to incorporate into new law the existing laws relating to duties of coroner. State ex rel. Crosby v. Moorhead, 100 Neb. 298, 159 N.W. 412 (1916).
Later act relating to verification, filing and allowance of claims against counties, being complete in itself, repealed by implication conflicting prior statute. Uttley v. Sievers, 100 Neb. 59, 158 N.W. 373 (1916).
Act providing for teaching foreign languages in schools was complete, and not amendatory of or in conflict with any prior law. State ex rel. Thayer v. School Dist. of Nebraska City, 99 Neb. 338, 156 N.W. 641 (1916).
Act to define "week" in legal notices was complete and not amendatory. In re Estate of Johnson, 98 Neb. 799, 154 N.W. 550 (1915).
Act complete in itself repeals by implication existing laws in conflict or repugnant thereto. State ex rel. Farmers State Bank of Pickrell v. Hevelone, 92 Neb. 748, 139 N.W. 636 (1913).
Mere fact that act refers to prior act by implication does not render new act amendatory if otherwise complete. Stewart v. Barton, 91 Neb. 96, 135 N.W. 381 (1912).
Provision is not violated by changes or modifications in existing statutes merely as incidental result of adopting new law covering whole subject to which it relates. De France v. Harmer, 66 Neb. 14, 92 N.W. 159 (1902).
Law relating to irrigation districts containing no reference to previous law must be construed as independent act. Bridgeport Irr. Dist. v. United States, 40 F.2d 827 (8th Cir. 1930).
Statute conferring additional powers on irrigation district was independent act, complete in itself, not governed by this section. New York Trust Co. v. Farmers Irr. Dist., 280 F. 785 (8th Cir. 1922).
4. Amendatory acts
The Depressant and Stimulant Drugs Act of 1967 did not violate this section. State v. Waechter, 189 Neb. 433, 203 N.W.2d 104 (1972).
L.B. 1003, Eighty-second Legislature, First Session, sections 23-2601 to 23-2612 did not violate this section since it was not amendatory. Dwyer v. Omaha-Douglas Public Building Commission, 188 Neb. 30, 195 N.W.2d 236 (1972).
An act which does not contain section amended but changes existing statutes in part so that changes and existing provisions result in connected piece of legislation covering same subject matter is void under this section. State v. Greenburg, 187 Neb. 149, 187 N.W.2d 751 (1971).
Cited in construing intent of the Legislature. Schurmann v. Curtiss, 183 Neb. 277, 159 N.W.2d 554 (1968).
Airport Authority Act did not violate this section. Obitz v. Airport Authority of City of Red Cloud, 181 Neb. 410, 149 N.W.2d 105 (1967).
The 1959 amendments to the act prescribing rules for administrative agencies were constitutional. Yellow Cab Co. v. Nebraska State Railway Commission, 175 Neb. 150, 120 N.W.2d 922 (1963).
The fact that legislation is cast in the form of an independent act is not controlling if in substance it is amendatory. Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. County of Box Butte, 166 Neb. 603, 90 N.W.2d 72 (1958).
Inference of amendment by implication could not be made. Omaha Nat. Bank v. Jensen, 157 Neb. 22, 58 N.W.2d 582 (1953).
Legislative act providing for proceedings with reference to children born out of wedlock did not violate this section. In re Application of Rozgall, 147 Neb. 260, 23 N.W.2d 85 (1946).
Reference to sections in compilation by an amendatory act applied to constitutional parts of original act, even though portions thereof had been held unconstitutional. Sullivan v. City of Omaha, 146 Neb. 297, 19 N.W.2d 510 (1945).
Statute may adopt penalty provision of another statute without being amendatory thereof. Adams v. State, 138 Neb. 613, 294 N.W. 396 (1940).
Under prior constitutional provision, if a bill was introduced in Legislature with constitutional time limit, amendments germane to its subject may be made after expiration of such time limit. Pierson v. Faulkner, 134 Neb. 865, 279 N.W. 813 (1938).
Where an act, although purporting to be independent act complete in itself, is in fact purely amendatory of existing legislation, it is void for noncompliance with this section. State ex rel. Day v. Hall, 129 Neb. 699, 262 N.W. 850 (1935); State ex rel. Taylor v. Hall, 129 Neb. 669, 262 N.W. 835 (1935).
Statute providing for payment of delinquent taxes without interest and penalty was amendatory of existing laws and invalid because not repealing original sections. Tukey v. Douglas County, 129 Neb. 353, 261 N.W. 833 (1935).
Where title states that subject of an act is to amend one section of a former statute, the act cannot be extended to amend other sections, and where title is to repeal certain sections the bill cannot re-enact the substance of the statutes repealed in title nor amend sections so repealed. Moeller, McPherrin & Judd v. Smith, 127 Neb. 424, 255 N.W. 551 (1934).
Where an act, although professing to be an independent act, makes changes in existing acts by adding new provisions and mingling the new with the old so as to make of the new and the old a connected piece of legislation covering the same subject, it is within the constitutional prohibition. State ex rel. Beal v. Bauman, 126 Neb. 566, 254 N.W. 256 (1934).
Substituting complete new act authorizing counties to foreclose liens for taxes delinquent more than three years, by amendment germane to original act, was not violative of requirement that new act set out amended sections. Douglas County v. Barker Co., 125 Neb. 253, 249 N.W. 607 (1933); Commercial Savings & Loan Assn. v. Pyramid Realty Co., 121 Neb. 493, 237 N.W. 575 (1931).
Common law marriage statute was not violative of constitutional prohibitions herein. Collins v. Hoag & Rollins, 122 Neb. 805, 241 N.W. 766 (1932).
Provision appointing county treasurer agent of department of public works in collection of automobile registration fees, and providing that he should retain 5-cent fee and account therefor was germane to act which it amended. Wayne County v. Steele, 121 Neb. 438, 237 N.W. 288 (1931).
Act to determine heirship did not violate provision respecting amendments. In re Robinson Heirship, 119 Neb. 285, 228 N.W. 852 (1930).
Intangible tax statute was not violative of provision respecting amendments. Mehrens v. Greenleaf, 119 Neb. 82, 227 N.W. 325 (1929).
Where act does not cover the whole subject or general scheme of legislation, and fails to amend existing statutes, it is void. State v. Painter, 117 Neb. 42, 219 N.W. 794 (1928).
Statute purporting to amend a certain section mentioned in title, but which attempts to amend another section without reference thereto, is void. Endres v. McDonald, 115 Neb. 827, 215 N.W. 114 (1927).
Statute requiring claims for damages against utilities district to be filed within 20 days, was void because not germane to original section attempted to be amended. Day v. Metropolitan Utilities Dist., 115 Neb. 711, 214 N.W. 647 (1927).
Section in Bovine Tuberculosis Act was void because not germane to subject expressed in title. State ex rel. Spillman v. Heldt, 115 Neb. 435, 213 N.W. 578 (1927).
Title of amendatory act using the word "bootlegging" was not inconsistent with body of act or subject matter of section to be amended. Knothe v. State, 115 Neb. 119, 211 N.W. 619 (1926).
Act amending section of Workmen's Compensation Law was void because added words were not germane to original section. Allen v. Trester, 112 Neb. 515, 199 N.W. 841 (1924).
Where two statutes are enacted at the same session without reference to one another, but as amendments of identical sections of the statutes, the one which is the later expression of the legislative will prevails, if the two enactments are irreconcilable. State ex rel. City of Omaha v. Board of County Comrs. of Douglas County, 109 Neb. 35, 189 N.W. 639 (1922).
Act amending section of prohibition law was germane to subject of legislation. State v. Badberg, 108 Neb. 816, 189 N.W. 157 (1922).
Amendatory act relating to county high school districts was germane to subject of legislation. State ex rel. Stockwell v. Berryman, 102 Neb. 553, 167 N.W. 790 (1918).
Amendatory act providing for consolidating contiguous school districts was germane to purpose of original section providing for children in one district attending school in another. Johnson v. School Dist. No. 101 of Saunders County, 102 Neb. 347, 167 N.W. 210 (1918).
Amendatory act requiring drainage district directors to submit question of incurring expense to election was germane to original section defining directors' duties. State ex rel. Gantz v. Drainage Dist. No. 1 of Merrick County, 100 Neb. 625, 160 N.W. 997 (1916).
Act increasing limit of taxation for county building was not complete but amendatory of existing statute fixing limit, and void because it does not contain or repeal amended section. Minier v. Burt County, 95 Neb. 473, 145 N.W. 977 (1914), rehearing denied 95 Neb. 483, 145 N.W. 1104 (1914).
Section as amended should contain all that is substituted for original section and original section should be entirely repealed. State ex rel. Martin v. Farmers & Merchants Bank of Oakland, 93 Neb. 1, 139 N.W. 653 (1913).
Where act amends specified section of statute, it is sufficient if the amendment is germane. State ex rel. Sch. Dist. of City of Lincoln v. Barton, 91 Neb. 357, 136 N.W. 22 (1912).
No amendatory legislation not germane to subject matter of original section can be included in act to amend particular section. Armstrong v. Mayer, 60 Neb. 423, 83 N.W. 401 (1900).
Amendatory legislation foreign to subject of original act, and not embraced in title thereof, cannot be included in amendatory act. State ex rel. Scott v. Bowen, 54 Neb. 211, 74 N.W. 615 (1898).
Act must set out in full new section and also contain repeal of old section amended. Reynolds v. State, 53 Neb. 761, 74 N.W. 330 (1898).
Referring to section of statute is sufficient in an amendatory act, but matters not germane to original section can not be included. Horkey v. Kendall, 53 Neb. 522, 73 N.W. 953 (1898).
Amendatory act is void if there is no mention of, or reference to, amended section or law. Douglas County v. Hayes, 52 Neb. 191, 71 N.W. 1023 (1897).
This section requires all parts of amended law to be included in new act and old law so amended to be repealed. State ex rel. Carey v. Cornell, 50 Neb. 526, 70 N.W. 56 (1897).
Act amending subdivision of section, and which contains subdivision so amended, does not violate Constitution. State ex rel. City Water Co. v. City of Kearney, 49 Neb. 325, 68 N.W. 533 (1896).
Where act may be construed to be either amendatory or an independent act, it will be given that construction which will sustain its constitutionality. Bridgeport Irr. Dist. v. United States, 40 F.2d 827 (8th Cir. 1930).
Statute relating to practice of veterinary medicine and surgery was not violative of this section. Peet Stock Remedy Co. v. McMullen, 32 F.2d 669 (8th Cir. 1929).
5. Legislative procedure
This provision does not demand that a bill remain uninterrupted on final reading for at least 1 legislative day immediately prior to its passage. DeCamp v. State, 256 Neb. 892, 594 N.W.2d 571 (1999).
This section, applying to legislative bills, refers to final passage. Klosterman v. Marsh, 180 Neb. 506, 143 N.W.2d 744 (1966).
Substituting an entire new bill by amendment is not unconstitutional where changes are germane; and it is not necessary that bill, if read twice before amendment, should again be placed on first and second reading. State ex rel. Davis v. Cox, 105 Neb. 75, 178 N.W. 913 (1920).
Failure of senate presiding officer to sign bill, afterwards approved by Governor, and shown on senate journal passed by constitutional majority, does not invalidate. State ex rel. Neb. State Railway Commission v. Missouri P. Ry. Co., 100 Neb. 700, 161 N.W. 270 (1916).
Three readings are not required after amendments have been made following the first and second reading. State ex rel. Martin v. Ryan, 92 Neb. 636, 139 N.W. 235 (1912).
Bill not authenticated by signature of presiding officer of either branch of Legislature was void. State ex rel. McClay v. Mickey, 73 Neb. 281, 102 N.W. 679 (1905).
This section does not require three separate readings of bills as finally amended. State ex rel. First Nat. Bank of Atkinson v. Cronin, 72 Neb. 636, 101 N.W. 325 (1904).
This section does not require that amendment or bills as amended, shall be read on three separate days. Cleland v. Anderson, 66 Neb. 252, 92 N.W. 306 (1902), affirmed on rehearing 66 Neb. 273, 96 N.W. 212 (1903), affirmed on rehearing 66 Neb. 276, 98 N.W. 1075 (1904).
Bill must be read on three separate days. State v. Burlington & M. R. R. Co., 60 Neb. 741, 84 N.W. 254 (1900).
The constitutional requirements for legislative bills do not apply to the Legislature’s proposed amendments. Thus, the “single subject” rule that applies to legislative bills under this provision does not apply to the Legislature’s proposed constitutional amendments. Such ballot measures are governed by Neb. Const. article XVI, section 1. State ex rel. Loontjer v. Gale, 288 Neb. 973, 853 N.W.2d 494 (2014).
Under this provision, a legislature may not attempt to restrict the constitutional power of a succeeding legislature to legislate. State ex rel. Stenberg v. Moore, 249 Neb. 589, 544 N.W.2d 344 (1996).
Act establishing Court of Industrial Relations does not violate any constitutional provision and the standards for its guidance are adequate. Orleans Education Assn. v. School Dist. of Orleans, 193 Neb. 675, 229 N.W.2d 172 (1975).
Constitutionality of Municipal Ground Water Act raised, but not decided. Metropolitan Utilities Dist. v. Merritt Beach Co., 179 Neb. 783, 140 N.W.2d 626 (1966).
Unconstitutionality of tax statute under this section raised but not decided. Creigh v. Larsen, 171 Neb. 317, 106 N.W.2d 187 (1960).
Provision of former primary election law requiring filing fifty days before primary by incumbent of one office seeking another was unconstitutional. Fitzgerald v. Kuppinger, 163 Neb. 286, 79 N.W.2d 547 (1956).
Installment Loan Act did not violate requirements of this section. State ex rel. Beck v. Associates Discount Corp., 162 Neb. 683, 77 N.W.2d 215 (1956).
This section does not apply to passage of city ordinances, and decisions thereunder are only valuable as analogies. Gembler v. City of Seward, 136 Neb. 196, 285 N.W. 542 (1939).
Entire act is void, where part of the act which is held unconstitutional is an inducement to the passage thereof, and is not separable. McShane v. Douglas County, 96 Neb. 664, 148 N.W. 569 (1914).
Federal district court would not abstain from deciding whether state banking statute was properly adopted by Nebraska Legislature where analysis of the applicable Nebraska case law left no doubt that such statute was invalid. Nebraskans for Independent Banking, Inc. v. Omaha Nat. Bank, 423 F.Supp. 519 (D. Neb. 1976).