Scottsbluff Improvement Ass'n v. City of Scottsbluff

Nebraska Supreme Court

Scottsbluff Improvement Ass'n v. City of Scottsbluff

164 N.W.2d 215, 183 Neb. 722, 1969 Neb. LEXIS 677

Nebraska Supreme Court·Decided January 17, 1969·No. 36969·Published·Cited by 58 cases

Opinion

Newton, J.

This is an error proceeding taken from the action of the mayor and council of the city of Scottsbluff in adopting a rezoning ordinance. The action was dismissed by the triál court and we affirm the judgment.

*723 It appears that there is a jurisdictional feature present which prevents our considering this cause on its merits. A zoning ordinance constitutes the exercise of a governmental and legislative function and a city council adopting a rezoning ordinance which amends a general zoning ordinance acts in a legislative capacity. See, Johnston v. City of Claremont, 49 Cal. 2d 826, 323 P. 2d 71; Besselman v. City of Moses Lake, 46 Wash. 2d 279, 280 P. 2d 689; McQuail v. Shell Oil Co., 40 Del. Ch. 396, 183 A. 2d 572; D’Angelo v. Knights of Columbus Bldg. Assn., 89 R. I. 76, 151 A. 2d 495; In re Clements’ Appeal, 2 Ohio App. 2d 201, 207 N. E. 2d 573; Anthony v. City of Kewanee, 79 Ill. App. 2d 243, 223 N. E. 2d 738.

In Williams v. County of Buffalo, 181 Neb. 233, 147 N. W. 2d 776, we held that an appeal or error proceeding does not lie from a purely legislative act by a public body to which legislative power has been delegated. We further stated that the only remedy in such cases is by collateral attack, that is, by injunction or other suitable action.

In Longe v. County of Wayne, 175 Neb. 245, 121 N. W. 2d 196, this court held that review by error proceeding is allowed under section 25-1901, R. R. S. 1943, only when a tribunal acts judicially. Such is not the case here.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Newton, J.

This is an error proceeding taken from the action of the mayor and council of the city of Scottsbluff in adopting a rezoning ordinance. The action was dismissed by the triál court and we affirm the judgment.

*723 It appears that there is a jurisdictional feature present which prevents our considering this cause on its merits. A zoning ordinance constitutes the exercise of a governmental and legislative function and a city council adopting a rezoning ordinance which amends a general zoning ordinance acts in a legislative capacity. See, Johnston v. City of Claremont, 49 Cal. 2d 826, 323 P. 2d 71; Besselman v. City of Moses Lake, 46 Wash. 2d 279, 280 P. 2d 689; McQuail v. Shell Oil Co., 40 Del. Ch. 396, 183 A. 2d 572; D’Angelo v. Knights of Columbus Bldg. Assn., 89 R. I. 76, 151 A. 2d 495; In re Clements’ Appeal, 2 Ohio App. 2d 201, 207 N. E. 2d 573; Anthony v. City of Kewanee, 79 Ill. App. 2d 243, 223 N. E. 2d 738.

In Williams v. County of Buffalo, 181 Neb. 233, 147 N. W. 2d 776, we held that an appeal or error proceeding does not lie from a purely legislative act by a public body to which legislative power has been delegated. We further stated that the only remedy in such cases is by collateral attack, that is, by injunction or other suitable action.

In Longe v. County of Wayne, 175 Neb. 245, 121 N. W. 2d 196, this court held that review by error proceeding is allowed under section 25-1901, R. R. S. 1943, only when a tribunal acts judicially. Such is not the case here.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed,

Scottsbluff Improvement Ass'n v. City of Scottsbluff, 164 N.W.2d 215, 183 Neb. 722, 1969 Neb. LEXIS 677 (Neb. 1969).

Pincite

164 N.W.2d 215 (Scottsbluff Improvement Ass'n v. City of Scottsbluff) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related