986 N.W.2d 757
Neb.2023Background:
- In 2019 Bellevue annexed a group of parcels including "Area #9," owned by Darling and Krejci.
- Darling and Krejci sued, arguing Area #9 was not adjacent/contiguous, was rural (not urban/suburban), and that the annexation was enacted for an improper purpose (solely to increase tax revenue).
- The district court found for plaintiffs on the adjacency/character claims and enjoined the annexation; it did not rule on improper purpose.
- This court in Darling I reversed the district court on adjacency/character and remanded for consideration of the improper-purpose claim only.
- On remand the district court reviewed the original trial record (did not reopen evidence) and found Darling failed to prove the City annexed Area #9 solely for revenue; the City annexed as part of planned growth and development.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s post-remand judgment.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Construction of appellate mandate/remand | Remand required a new trial or further proceedings to present new evidence | Remand merely required the trial court to consider the improper-purpose claim; court had discretion how to proceed | Remand did not mandate a new trial; trial court properly decided the claim on the existing record |
| Improper purpose (annexation solely for revenue) | City annexed Area #9 solely to increase tax revenue, making the ordinance invalid | City annexed for legitimate planning reasons (natural growth, fill gaps) and prudently considered revenue among other factors | Darling failed to meet burden; revenue was a factor but not the sole motivating purpose; annexation upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Darling Ingredients v. City of Bellevue, 309 Neb. 338 (2021) (prior appeal reversing on adjacency/character and remanding to consider improper-purpose challenge)
- TransCanada Keystone Pipeline v. Tanderup, 305 Neb. 493 (2020) (defining remand and lower court duties on remand)
- Barnett v. Happy Cab Co., 311 Neb. 464 (2022) (discussion of remand as appellate order returning a proceeding)
- United States Cold Storage v. City of La Vista, 285 Neb. 579 (2013) (revenue may be a factor but annexation is improper only if solely motivated by revenue)
- SID No. 196 of Douglas County v. City of Valley, 290 Neb. 1 (2015) (annexation solely for tax revenue is improper)
- SID No. 57 v. City of Elkhorn, 248 Neb. 486 (1995) (municipality may consider revenue when making annexation decisions)