Dowd Grain Co. v. County of Sarpy
291 Neb. 620
Neb.2015Background
- Sarpy County adopted an HC Highway Corridor Overlay Ordinance on March 9, 2004, imposing design guidelines applicable to "new development proposals."
- In May 2007 the county amended the overlay to exempt land that had been platted prior to March 9, 2004 (and certain phased developments), thereby shielding those properties from some design requirements.
- Dowd Grain owned property inside the overlay district that was not platted before March 9, 2004 and thus was not exempt; it had spent substantial funds preparing its property for development.
- Dowd Grain sued for a declaratory judgment, claiming the exemption constituted unconstitutional special legislation by arbitrarily favoring a class of property owners.
- The district court ruled for the county, finding the exemption did not create a closed class and that exempting pre-plat property was a reasonable legislative distinction; Dowd Grain appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the exemption is unconstitutional special legislation | The exemption creates an arbitrary, permanently closed class and improperly grants special privileges to pre-platted properties | The exemption is a reasonable classification to protect owners who relied on prior rules and invested substantially; the class is not closed because parcels/owners can change | Exemption is not special legislation: class not closed and distinction reasonably related to legitimate legislative purpose |
Key Cases Cited
- D-CO, Inc. v. City of La Vista, 285 Neb. 676 (zoning challenges presumed valid; challenger bears burden)
- Coffey v. County of Otoe, 274 Neb. 796 (burden and standards for attacking zoning ordinances)
- Banks v. Heineman, 286 Neb. 390 (prohibition on special legislation: preventing arbitrary classifications)
- Kiplinger v. Nebraska Dept. of Nat. Resources, 282 Neb. 237 (owners of land in a geographic area form a non-closed class because property is alienable)
- Giger v. City of Omaha, 232 Neb. 676 (improper discrimination where Legislature arbitrarily selects a class without reasonable distinction)
- City of Ralston v. Balka, 247 Neb. 773 (legislative classification must rest on substantial difference related to public policy)
- J.M. v. Hobbs, 288 Neb. 546 (classifications must be real, not illusive; distinct treatment must bear reasonable relation to legislative objectives)