Oral Arguments are happening now.View them on the web or via Mobile App on iPhone / iPad or Android (4.0+).

You are here

United States Cold Storage, Inc. v. City of La Vista (***)

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version
Date: 
Tuesday, January 8, 2013

United States Cold Storage, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation v. City of La Vista, et al., and Sanitary and Improvement District No. 59 of Sarpy County, Nebraska, a Nebraska Municipal Corporation (Appellant) and Sanitary and Improvement District No. 59 of Sarpy County, Nebraska, a Nebraska Municipal Corporation, Cross-Claim Plaintiff-Appellant) v. City of La Vista, a Nebraska Municipal Corporation, Cross-Claim Defendant-Appellee

 

Sarpy County, Judge Max J. Kelch

 

Attorneys: Robert J. Huck, Scott D. Jochim (Crocer Huck Kasher DeWitt Anderson & Gonderinger LLC) (Appellant SID 59) --- Bryan S. Hatch (Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP) (for Appellee/Cross-Appellant United States Cold Storage) --- Gerald L. Friedrichsen, William Bradshaw (Fitzgerald Schorr Barmettler & Brennan PCLLO) (For Appellee City of La Vista et al.)

 

Civil: Declaratory judgment and injunctive relief requesting invalidation of city ordinances, annexation of SID 59

 

Proceedings below: The district court entered two separate orders, respectively dismissing the claims raised by United States Cold Storage and SID 59 against the City of La Vista. SID 59 filed a Petition to Bypass the Court of Appeals which was granted by the Nebraska Supreme Court.

 

Issues: 1. The District Court erred when it entered its March 6, 2012 Order dismissing SID 59's cross-claims against La Vista with prejudice. 2. The District Court erred in finding in its March 6,2012 Order that SID 59 did not meet its burden of proof as to the first and second causes of action in its cross-claims against LaVista.3. The District Court erred in failing to enter a declaratory judgment invalidating Ordinance 1142 as being null and void ab initio because it was passed in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 31-765 (Reissue 2008). 4. The District Court erred in failing to enter a permanent injunction against LaVista, restraining and enjoining LaVista from taking any action in furtherance of implementing ,effectuating and/or enforcing Ordinance 1142. 5. The District Court erred in finding that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 31-766 (Reissue 2008) was the controlling statute over SID 59's challenge to the legal validity of Ordinance 1142. 6. The District Court erred in failing to consider the provisions of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 3l-765 (Reissue 2003) and USCS's pending challenge to La Vista's prior total annexation ordinance regarding SID 59 (Ordinance 1107) when it dismissed SID 59's cross-claims against La Vista seeking to invalidate Ordinance 1142. 7. The District Court erred in failing to find that La Vista's attempt to annex a portion of SID 59 through Ordinance 1 142 was a violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 31-765 during the pendency of USCS's challenge to La Vista's prior total annexation ordinance regarding SID 59 (Ordinance 1107).

 

Cross-Appeal: The District Court erred (1) in failing to find that Ordinance I107 is void because La Vista violated the statutorily-protected due process rights of all landowners within SID 59 by failing to (a) provide ten working days' notice of the two public hearings on the annexation, (b) provide required content in the respective notices, and (c) send a certified letter of the initial public hearing to the Clerk of SID 59; (2) in failing to find that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 19-5001(5) is unconstitutional as it purports to permit La Vista from annexing an area without strictly complying with § 19-5001(2) & (3); (3) in failing to find that Ordinance 1107 is void because it seeks to annex a statutorily-protected Industrial Area which La Vista lacks the authority to annex absent consent of a majority in value of the property owners within the Industrial Area; (4) in failing to find that the 1991 Amendments to the Nebraska Industrial Areas Act amount to special legislation and are, therefore, unconstitutional because they create (a) an arbitrary and unreasonable method of classification and (b) a permanently closed class; (5) in failing to find that Ordinance 1107 is void because La Vista annexed SID 59 primarily or solely for revenue purposes.

This page was last modified on Friday, January 11, 2013