14-117. Corporate limits; how fixed; annexation of cities or villages; limitation; powers and duties of city council.
The corporate limits of any city of the metropolitan class shall be fixed and determined by ordinance by the council of such city. The city council of any city of the metropolitan class may at any time extend the corporate limits of such city over any contiguous or adjacent lands, lots, tracts, streets, or highways, such distance as may be deemed proper in any direction, and may include, annex, merge, or consolidate with such city of the metropolitan class, by such extension of its limits, any adjoining city of the first class having less than ten thousand population or any adjoining city of the second class or village. Any other laws and limitations defining the boundaries of cities or villages or the increase of area or extension of limits thereof shall not apply to lots, lands, cities, or villages annexed, consolidated, or merged under this section.
Laws 1921, c. 116, art. I, § 16, p. 412;
C.S.1922, § 3504;
C.S.1929, § 14-117;
R.S.1943, § 14-117;
Laws 1998, LB 611, § 1.
1. Powers of city
Under this section, the Legislature intended to permit a metropolitan city to extend its corporate limits so that it adjoins the corporate limits of a city to be annexed. City of Elkhorn v. City of Omaha, 272 Neb. 867, 725 N.W.2d 792 (2007).
The act of annexation is a matter of statewide concern, and therefore the state statutes, not the city charter provisions, are controlling. S.I.D. No. 95 v. City of Omaha, 221 Neb. 272, 376 N.W.2d 767 (1985).
No restriction on right to extend corporate limits of metropolitan city when properly exercised, and when proper procedures followed taxpayers have no right to intervene in legal actions involving annexation proceedings. Airport Authority of City of Millard v. City of Omaha, 185 Neb. 623, 177 N.W.2d 603 (1970).
Annexation pursuant to this section is a legislative matter, however, courts have power to inquire into and determine whether conditions exist which authorize the annexation. Sullivan v. City of Omaha, 183 Neb. 511, 162 N.W.2d 227 (1968).
This section does not confer power upon a city of the metropolitan class to annex property in an adjoining county. Barton v. City of Omaha, 180 Neb. 752, 145 N.W.2d 444 (1966).
This section governs the annexation of territory by a city of the metropolitan class. Bierschenk v. City of Omaha, 178 Neb. 715, 135 N.W.2d 12 (1965).
Annexation of rural lands was denied. Wagner v. City of Omaha, 156 Neb. 163, 55 N.W.2d 490 (1952).
This section authorized merger and consolidation of cities, towns and villages with metropolitan city. Omaha Water Co. v. City of Omaha, 162 F. 225 (8th Cir. 1908).
Constitutional for metropolitan city to annex city of first class operating under home rule charter. City of Millard v. City of Omaha, 185 Neb. 617, 177 N.W.2d 576 (1970).
Annexation ordinance extending corporate limits of metropolitan city was not unconstitutional. Buller v. City of Omaha, 164 Neb. 435, 82 N.W.2d 578 (1957).
The “contiguous or adjacent” standard for annexations also applies to “adjoining city.” City of Elkhorn v. City of Omaha, 272 Neb. 867, 725 N.W.2d 792 (2007).
The terms “contiguous” and “adjoining” in this section are synonymous. City of Elkhorn v. City of Omaha, 272 Neb. 867, 725 N.W.2d 792 (2007).
Under the “contiguous or adjacent” standard in annexation statutes, municipalities are not required to have common boundaries with the territory to be annexed, and they may annex territory nearby in proximity through the simultaneous annexation of a substantial link of connecting territory. City of Elkhorn v. City of Omaha, 272 Neb. 867, 725 N.W.2d 792 (2007).
Use of land for agricultural purposes does not mean, by itself, that it is rural in character. Location as well as use must be considered in making the determination. Omaha Country Club v. City of Omaha, 214 Neb. 3, 332 N.W.2d 206 (1983).
Method of annexation under this section compared with method of annexation prescribed for cities of the first class. State ex rel. City of Grand Island v. Tillman, 174 Neb. 23, 115 N.W.2d 796 (1962).