Neb Supremes reject LPS intervention in school funding suit

The Nebraska Supreme Court today rejected Lincoln Public School Districts motion to intervene in litigation the Omaha School District initiated against the State seeking to hold Nebraska's School Funding system unconstitutional. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001 v. Johanns, 269 Neb. 664 Filed April 15, 2005. No. S-04-874. Lincoln and Omaha papers reported the decision pretty accurately. It probably is a good result to keep dozens of other districts out of the case (too many cooks spoiling the stew) but the reasoning on ground of civil procedure is flawed. “‘“[w]hen public officers are engaged in litigation to protect public rights, and their pleadings and procedure maintain the public interest, no private person is entitled to intervene.”’” Best & Co., Inc. v. City of Omaha, 149 Neb. 868, 877, 33 N.W.2d 150, 156 (1948). Accord Smithberger v. Banning, 130 Neb. 354, 265 N.W. 10 (1936). "(Other ) jurisdictions routinely hold that under the parens patriae doctrine, when a state is a party to a suit involving a matter of sovereign interest, it is presumed to represent the interests of all its citizens. See also New Jersey v. New York, 345 U.S. 369, 372-73, 73 S. Ct. 689, 97 L. Ed. 1081 (1953), {“parens patriae” necessary recognition of sovereign dignity, as well as a working rule for good judicial administration}. Trouble is this rule speaks to the intervention of every citizen on the street wearing a tin foil hat. OPS, argued that LPS did not properly plead a direct, not speculative legal interest in the litigation, as 25-328 requires. Direct interests are those that may cause the intervenor to lose or gain by the direct operation and legal effect of the judgment. Therefore, a person seeking to intervene must allege facts showing that he or she possesses the requisite legal interest in the subject matter of the action. we hold that this speculative allegation is insufficient to state a direct legal right that would allow intervention. The Court did not elaborate how the special pleading requirement it found within 25-328 trumps our new federalized notice pleading the Supreme Court adopted 2 years ago.