Darling Ingredients v. City of Bellevue
309 Neb. 338
| Neb. | 2021Background
- In 2019 Bellevue adopted ordinances annexing multiple areas, including "Area #9," which encompassed ~320 acres owned by Darling Ingredients (industrial plant, farmland, and a small undeveloped strip) and a 55-acre cropland parcel owned by Krejci.
- Darling and Krejci sued in equity seeking declarations that the annexation violated Neb. Rev. Stat. § 16-130 because the lands were rural/agricultural and not contiguous/adjacent; they also alleged the annexation was motivated by improper tax/revenue purposes.
- The district court considered documentary evidence and affidavits (no live testimony) showing: parts of Area #9 were agricultural (greenbelt), a long-standing industrial plant existed on-site, nearby features included Highway 75, Offutt AFB (~1 mile), residential subdivisions and a (previously annexed) baseball complex, and the City’s comprehensive plan contemplated industrial development of Area #9.
- The district court held the annexation invalid because Area #9 was rural/agricultural and the annexed baseball-complex area created an "island" so Area #9 was not contiguous to the City; it did not decide the improper-purpose claim, and permanently enjoined enforcement of the ordinance.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed, finding the district court erred on both character and contiguity grounds, and remanded for the district court to consider the plaintiffs’ improper-purpose challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Area #9 is urban/suburban or rural/agricultural in character under § 16-130 | Darling & Krejci: majority of Area #9 is unplatted farmland, no residences/structures, no city services → rural/agricultural, so not annexable | City: proximity to Highway 75, Offutt AFB, nearby subdivisions/industry, existing industrial plant, comprehensive plan envisioning industrial use → urban/suburban in character | Court: Area #9 is not irrationally agricultural or disconnected given location, existing industrial use, nearby development, and planned future use; district court erred in finding rural character |
| Whether Area #9 is contiguous/adjacent to the City as required by § 16-130 | Darling & Krejci: the City’s earlier annexation (baseball complex area) created an isolated "island"; that island cannot be used to establish adjacency | City: Darling parcel shares a common border with the annexed baseball-complex area; tracts are adjacent to each other so statute satisfied | Court: prior annexation (baseball complex) is part of City and not challenged here (statute of limitations), so it supplies adjacency; district court erred |
| Whether the annexation was enacted for an improper purpose (e.g., solely to increase tax revenue) | Darling & Krejci: annexation motivated by revenue and preemptive growth capture — improper purpose invalidates annexation | City: annexation justified by planning, services, and future development considerations | Court: District court did not decide this issue; Supreme Court remanded for the district court to consider the improper-purpose claim on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- SID No. 196 of Douglas Cty. v. City of Valley, 290 Neb. 1 (2015) (annexation review is deferential but city action must not be arbitrary; improper tax motive invalid)
- County of Sarpy v. City of Papillion, 277 Neb. 829 (2009) (contiguity/adjacency standards; city is single mass/community-of-interest rationale)
- Wagner v. City of Omaha, 156 Neb. 163 (1952) (agricultural unplatted lands held rural; early articulation of "rural vs urban" analysis)
- Cornhusker Pub. Power Dist. v. City of Schuyler, 269 Neb. 972 (2005) (municipal annexation power must be exercised in strict accord with statute)
- Witham v. City of Lincoln, 125 Neb. 366 (1933) (annexation improperly motivated by tax revenue is invalid)
- Swedlund v. City of Hastings, 243 Neb. 607 (1993) (land use alone does not determine rural character; location and context matter)
- Voss v. City of Grand Island, 186 Neb. 232 (1970) (future development and location may render agricultural land annexable)
- Sullivan v. City of Omaha, 183 Neb. 511 (1968) ("nature of location as well as use" determines rural vs urban character)
- Bierschenk v. City of Omaha, 178 Neb. 715 (1965) (factors for evaluating character include proximity to housing, industry, and thoroughfares)