City of Springfield, Nebraska, a Nebraska municipal corporation, appellant,
Clty of Papillion, Nebraska, a Nebraska Municipal Corporation, And County of Sarpy, Nebraska, A Body Corporate And Politic, Appellees.
Judgments: Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. Determination of a
jurisdictional issue which does not involve a factual dispute
is a matter of law which requires an appellate court to reach
its conclusions independent from a trial court.
Standing: Words and Phrases. Standing involves a real
interest in the cause of action, meaning some legal or
equitable right, title, or interest in the subject matter of
Standing: Claims: Parties: Proof. To have standing, a
litigant must assert its own rights and interests and
demonstrate an injury in fact, which is concrete in both a
qualitative and temporal sense. The alleged injury in fact
must be distinct and palpable, as opposed to merely abstract,
and the alleged harm must be actual or imminent, not
conjectural or hypothetical.
Annexation: Proof. To challenge an annexation, the plaintiff
must show (1) a personal, pecuniary, and legal interest that
has been affected by the annexation and (2) the existence of
an injury to that interest that is personal in nature.
from the District Court for Sarpy County: William B. Zastera,
William E. Seidler, Jr., of Seidler & Seidler, PC, for
Neb. 605] Karla R. Rupiper, Papillion City Attorney, and
Jessica E. Thomas for appellee City of Papillion.
Heavican, C.J., Wright, Miller-Lerman, Cassel, and Stacy, JJ.
City of Springfield, Nebraska, filed this action against the
City of Papillion, Nebraska, and the County of Sarpy,
Nebraska (County), seeking to enjoin Papillion from annexing
land which had been indicated as Springfield's area of
future growth in a map adopted by the County in 1995. The
district court for Sarpy County found that Springfield lacked
standing and Springfield appeals.
1994, the Nebraska Legislature passed the County Industrial
Sewer Construction Act (Act). The Act's legislative
findings indicate that the Legislature intended to attract
commercial and industrial development by sharing costs of
sewer development across counties and by giving counties the
authority to manage construction of these
sewers. As part of this program, certain
municipalities were granted new authority to prevent counties
from expanding the use of sewers for residential development
in areas of the municipality's predicted future growth
and development. These municipalities were also given
authority to appoint members of urbanizing area planning
procedures outlined in the Act, a 1995 resolution passed by
the County identified a parcel of land south of Highway 370
as part of Springfield's area of future growth and [294
Neb. 606] development. However, in July 2015, Papillion
enacted ordinances Nos. 1715 and 1716, annexing some of this
filed suit, claiming the annexation was invalid under Neb.
Rev. Stat. §§ 16-117 to 16-130 (Reissue 2012). It
sought temporary and permanent injunctive relief against
Papillion and the County. The district court initially
granted a temporary restraining order, but after a hearing,
the district court dismissed the case for lack of standing.
The district court agreed with the defendants' contention
that the "Act is in place primarily for [the]
County's planning and construction of sewer systems, and
[the] County's associate Future Growth Map is an ever
evolving tool." Therefore, the district court found the
Act did not grant Springfield standing.
assigns, consolidated into one assignment of error, that the
district court erred by dismissing the suit for lack of
of a jurisdictional issue which does not involve a factual
dispute is a matter of law which requires an appellate court
to reach its ...