- 338 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

DARLING INGREDIENTS v. CITY OF BELLEVUE

Cite as 309 Neb. 338

Darling Ingredients Inc., formerly known as 

Darling International Inc., and Darling 

National LLC, appellees, v. City of 

Bellevue, a Nebraska municipal 

corporation, appellant.

Frank R. Krejci, Trustee of the Frank R. Krejci 

Revocable Trust, appellee, v. City of 

Bellevue, a Nebraska municipal 

corporation, appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed May 28, 2021. Nos. S-20-405, S-20-406.

1. Annexation: Ordinances: Equity. An action to determine the validity 

of an annexation ordinance and enjoin its enforcement sounds in equity.

2. Equity: Appeal and Error. On appeal from an equity action, an appellate court decides factual questions de novo on the record and, as to 

questions of both fact and law, is obligated to reach a conclusion independent of the trial court’s determination.

3. Annexation: Statutes. The issue of whether the character of the land to 

be annexed meets the legal standard prescribed in the statute is a question of law. Although the characterization of the land depends on the 

particular facts of each case, the question of whether the facts fulfill a 

particular legal standard presents a question of law.

4. Municipal Corporations: Annexation: Statutes. The power delegated 

to municipal corporations to annex territory must be exercised in strict 

accord with the statute conferring it.

5. Annexation: Taxation. It is improper for an annexation to be solely 

motivated by an increase in tax revenue.

6. Annexation: Ordinances: Proof. The burden is on one who attacks an 

annexation ordinance, valid on its face and enacted under lawful authority, to prove facts to establish its invalidity.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

06/11/2021 01:09 AM CDT
- 339 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

DARLING INGREDIENTS v. CITY OF BELLEVUE

Cite as 309 Neb. 338

7. Annexation: Words and Phrases. The use of land for agricultural purposes does not necessarily mean it is rural in character. It is the nature 

of its location as well as its use which determines whether it is rural or 

urban in character.

8. Municipal Corporations: Annexation. To determine whether lands 

are urban or suburban, or rural, the test is whether a city has arbitrarily 

and irrationally used the power granted therein to include lands entirely 

disconnected, agricultural in character, and bearing no rational relation 

to the legitimate purposes of annexation.

9. Annexation: Words and Phrases. The terms “contiguous” and “adjacent” mean adjoining, touching, and sharing a common border.

10. Municipal Corporations: Annexation. A municipality may annex several tracts as long as one tract is substantially adjacent to the municipality and the other tracts are substantially adjacent to each other.

Appeals from the District Court for Sarpy County: Nathan 

B. Cox, Judge. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

A. Bree Robbins, Bellevue City Attorney, for appellant.

Michael S. Degan, of Kutak Rock, L.L.P., for appellee 

Darling Ingredients Inc.

James E. Lang, of Lang Law, L.L.C., for appellee Frank 

R. Krejci.

Heavican, C.J., Cassel, Stacy, Funke, Papik, and 

Freudenberg, JJ.

Papik, J.

After the City of Bellevue (the City) adopted an ordinance 

to annex their land, landowners brought actions in the district 

court and obtained orders finding that the City lacked the 

authority to annex the land and enjoining it from doing so. 

The district court found the City lacked authority because the 

land in question was rural and agricultural rather than urban or 

suburban and because it was not contiguous and adjacent to the 

City’s existing boundaries. The district court did not address 

the landowners’ argument that the annexation was not lawful 

because it was motivated by an improper purpose.
- 340 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

DARLING INGREDIENTS v. CITY OF BELLEVUE

Cite as 309 Neb. 338

In these consolidated appeals of the district court’s orders, 

we find that the district court erred by finding the annexation 

invalid for the reasons it identified. We therefore reverse, and 

remand for further proceedings so that the district court may 

consider the landowners’ improper purpose challenge.

BACKGROUND

Procedural Background.

In 2019, the City adopted ordinances that provided for the 

annexation of various areas. One of the ordinances annexed 

a portion of land referred to as “Area #9.” Area #9 consisted 

of properties owned by Darling Ingredients Inc. and Darling 

National LLC (collectively Darling), and Frank R. Krejci, 

trustee of the Frank R. Krejci Revocable Trust (Krejci).

Darling and Krejci filed separate complaints in the district 

court for Sarpy County, naming the City as a defendant. They 

asserted that the City had exceeded the authority and powers 

granted to a city of the first class by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 16-130 

(Cum. Supp. 2020). They claimed that the City lacked authority under § 16-130, because the land in question was not 

adjacent to or contiguous with the existing City limits and 

was agricultural and rural in character rather than urban or 

suburban. Darling and Krejci also claimed that the ordinance 

was invalid because it was enacted for an improper purpose. 

Both Darling and Krejci asked the district court to declare the 

ordinance invalid and to permanently enjoin the City from taking actions to enforce it. The two actions were consolidated for 

discovery and trial.

Evidence at Trial.

The parties did not call any witnesses at trial. Instead, they 

offered a number of affidavits and other documentary evidence 

as exhibits. The district court received all of these exhibits 

as evidence, most without objection. A summary of the evidence received by the district court is provided in the para

graphs below.
- 341 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

DARLING INGREDIENTS v. CITY OF BELLEVUE

Cite as 309 Neb. 338

In 2019, the City considered an annexation package made up 

of several sanitary and improvement districts and unincorporated parcels of land in its extraterritorial jurisdiction, including Area #9.

The City’s planning director prepared a memorandum for city 

officials about Area #9 and several other unincorporated areas. 

The memorandum concluded with two different recommendations. The City’s planning department recommended approval 

of the annexation based on the positive financial impact on 

the City and its natural growth and development. The City’s 

planning commission, however, recommended approving the 

annexation proposal with the exception of some parcels designated with “greenbelt” tax valuation status, including portions 

of Area #9. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1344 (Reissue 2018). 

Rather than excluding all greenbelt lots, the City’s planning 

commission recommended annexing greenbelt lots that did not 

appear to be used for agricultural purposes.

Following public hearings, the city council voted unanimously to adopt the ordinance that annexed Area #9. Around 

the same time and while this matter was pending in district 

court, the City annexed several other unincorporated areas 

and sanitary and improvement districts. The City planned to 

provide services to all annexed areas and assess future infrastructure needs.

The following map was attached to the ordinance that 

annexed Area #9. Area #9 is shaded in blue and located below 

the center line. Areas have been labeled by this court for clarity.

The northwestern portion of Area #9 is a 55-acre strip 

owned by Krejci; it comprises the majority of the western border of Area #9. The Krejci property has been used exclusively 

for raising crops since before 2011. It contains no structures 

or buildings; does not have City water, sewer, or gas service; 

and has no residents. Although the entire Krejci property has 

greenbelt tax valuation status, record cards from the Sarpy 

County assessor listed the location of the property as “[s]ub

urban.” In an affidavit, the Sarpy County assessor stated that 
- 342 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

DARLING INGREDIENTS v. CITY OF BELLEVUE

Cite as 309 Neb. 338

his office had determined that Krejci’s property was suburban 

in both location and character.

Frank R. Krejci stated in an affidavit received by the district 

court that in his opinion as a purchaser, owner, and developer 

of property in the area over the preceding 50 years, the Krejci 

property and the adjoining property to the east were rural in 

nature, agricultural in character, and not urban or suburban, 

and there were no urban or suburban uses for it. The district 

court also received a real estate listing of the Krejci property 

created in 2014 and last updated in June 2019. The listing 

divided the Krejci property into several “small industrial lots.” 

The proximity to Highway 75—with visibility to 27,000 cars 

per day—and Offutt Air Force Base (Offutt AFB) were touted, 

and the City’s “Master Plan for Industrial Use” was referenced. The listing included aerial pictures of the surrounding 

Existing 

City of 

Bellevue

Existing 

City of 

Bellevue

Existing 

City of 

Bellevue

Area #9
- 343 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

DARLING INGREDIENTS v. CITY OF BELLEVUE

Cite as 309 Neb. 338

area that depicted Area #9, Offutt AFB, and nearby developed areas.

Darling owns the remaining portion of Area #9. The Darling 

property totals approximately 265 acres and includes farmland 

(Darling farmland), an industrial plant (Darling plant), and 

a fingerlike strip on the easternmost portion of Area #9. As 

with the Krejci property, record cards from the Sarpy County 

assessor listed the location of the property as “[s]uburban,” 

and the Sarpy County assessor stated that his office had determined that the property was suburban in both location and 

character.

Darling’s easternmost property is approximately 20 acres 

and includes no structures. According to Darling’s general 

plant manager, this portion was not suitable for development 

because it was partially wooded, was prone to flooding, and 

was accessible only by driving on the levy next to Papillion 

Creek. It did not have greenbelt tax valuation status and was 

zoned industrial.

The Darling farmland covers 220 acres. The Darling manager stated in an affidavit that Darling purchased the Darling 

farmland in 2011, that it was used exclusively for agriculture at 

that time, and that Darling has used it exclusively for agriculture by leasing it to a tenant farmer who raises crops there. The 

Darling manager stated that Darling has no plans to use the 

Darling farmland for any other purpose. The Darling farmland 

has never been platted and has no improvements other than 

those related to agricultural purposes. Since 1995, the Darling 

farmland has been designated as greenbelt land for tax val

uation purposes. Records of the Sarpy County assessor reflect 

that the Darling farmland was both zoned as and being used 

for agricultural purposes. No City services were supplied to the 

Darling farmland.

The Darling plant sits on approximately 45 acres and is 

located within the generally triangular middle portion of 

Area #9 depicted in the map above. The area has been used 

as some form of industrial plant since the 1940’s. The Darling 

plant is an industrial facility that converts animal byproducts 
- 344 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

DARLING INGREDIENTS v. CITY OF BELLEVUE

Cite as 309 Neb. 338

into sustainable food, feed, and fuel ingredients. It does not 

have greenbelt tax valuation status and is zoned as industrial 

by the Sarpy County assessor.

The Darling farmland and the Darling plant are served by 

the “City of Omaha for water and sewer, Encore and Black 

Hills Energy for gas,” and Sarpy County for roads and emergency services. Emergency services are provided by the City’s 

fire department through Sarpy County.

Fort Crook Road borders Area #9 on the west side. Highway 

75 is just outside the western edge of Area #9. Papillion 

Creek borders Area #9 on the east. The area on the other side 

of Papillion Creek, outlined in black on the map above, was 

annexed by the City in 2009. The parties agree that at some 

point that area included a baseball complex. The district court 

described the baseball complex as “failed,” and our record 

includes a 2017 newspaper article stating that the complex cost 

$6.5 million to build, but after the complex did not live up to 

revenue expectations, the City agreed to end its relationship 

with the entity that had managed it. The article also stated 

that the City’s mayor said that the land was in an area the City 

had eyed for future growth. As shown on the map above, the 

area including the baseball complex does not border the rest of 

the land within the City’s boundaries.

Offutt AFB is to the north of both the area of the City, 

including the baseball complex, and Area #9. According to evidence in the record, Offutt AFB is the home of U.S. Strategic 

Command and a wing of the U.S. Air Force. It includes a 

nonpublic airport and about 10,000 military and other federal employees.

Immediately to the south of Area #9 is the Normandy Hills 

residential subdivision. Several other residential subdivisions 

are located on the other side of Highway 75 to the west and 

northwest of Area #9. These subdivisions are within 1 mile of 

Area #9. Five of these subdivisions were annexed, at least in 

part, by the same annexation package that annexed Area #9, and 

one of those annexed parcels includes an elementary school. 

Evidence was also introduced at trial that in addition to the 
- 345 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

DARLING INGREDIENTS v. CITY OF BELLEVUE

Cite as 309 Neb. 338

Normandy Hills subdivision and Offutt AFB, there was one 

commercial establishment and six industrial establishments 

within a 1-mile radius of Area 9, including the Darling plant.

The district court received the affidavits of several City 

officials. The director of the City’s planning department stated 

that annexation of Area #9 occurred after an annual review 

and that he “used a high degree of intelligent planning and 

coordination in reviewing the proposed areas to be annexed 

[and] thoroughly reviewed all surrounding areas of the City . . . 

and its future growth and development.” Similarly, the City’s 

land use planner stated that Area #9 was annexed, along with 

others, “to continue the growth and development for the City 

. . . . The annexations help with fulfilling the continuous growth 

and cohesiveness of the community, fill gaps within the community, and help[] the [C]ity continue to grow together.” She 

also said that “growth and development of the City . . . continues to expand near the subject properties.” The City’s land use 

planner referenced the City’s comprehensive plan.

The district court received the comprehensive plan, which 

was initially created by the City in the early 2000’s and 

updated as late as 2017. It projected that the City’s population 

would increase from under 45,000 in 2000 to over 60,000 by 

2030. According to the comprehensive plan, the projected population growth would require the City to double the amount 

of land it occupied. The comprehensive plan encouraged the 

City to monitor “future-growth” areas and be prepared to 

annex land before it was developed. Referring to the general 

area in which Area #9 was located, the comprehensive plan 

stated, “[I]f commercial development occurs in this area and is 

adjacent to the corporate boundary, the area should be annexed 

immediately.”

The comprehensive plan classified the section of Highway 

75 just to the west of Area #9 as a “rural principal arterial,” 

in that it provided traffic movement for substantial statewide 

or interstate travel. It noted that increased development to 

the south of the Bellevue metropolitan area had overloaded 

existing transportation facilities and increased congestion. A 
- 346 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

DARLING INGREDIENTS v. CITY OF BELLEVUE

Cite as 309 Neb. 338

reconfigured interchange at the northwest corner of Area #9 

and a new interchange approximately 1 mile south of Area #9 

had been approved as “2030 Street Improvements” by the 

regional planning agency’s “2035 Long Range Transportation 

Plan,” and the same plan approved converting the area of 

Highway 75 to the west of Area #9 from four to six lanes. 

The comprehensive plan recommended the “Future Roadway 

Functional Classification” for the area just west of Area #9 as 

an “Urban Princip[al] Arterial Roadway.”

The comprehensive plan identified the area near the Highway 

75 intersection approximately 1 mile south of Area #9 as one 

“expected to see significant population growth during the planning period” and to become the City’s “new southern gateway.” 

It suggested planning a major regional activity center for the 

area, to include “a regional shopping mall, a number of major 

employers, and other amenities that support a large area such 

as dining, entertainment, and public and quasi-public uses.” 

The comprehensive plan contemplated that the activity center 

would serve residents of Sarpy County and the larger Omaha 

metropolitan area.

The comprehensive plan considered Area #9 to be developable. It recommended future land use of Area #9 as light industry, heavy industry, and flex space. The term “flex space” was 

described as supporting a variety of commercial, retail, and 

industrial uses, as well as helping the market to determine the 

use of the space. The comprehensive plan based its flex space 

recommendation on Area #9’s proximity to a proposed industrial park and Offutt AFB.

The City admitted in answers to interrogatories received by 

the district court that it was not aware of any retail establishments within 1 mile of the Darling plant or any proposed or 

planned development within Area #9.

District Court’s Orders.

The district court entered separate but identical orders in 

the Darling action and the Krejci action, finding in favor of 

Darling and Krejci.
- 347 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

DARLING INGREDIENTS v. CITY OF BELLEVUE

Cite as 309 Neb. 338

The district court determined that in annexing Area #9, 

the City had exceeded its statutory authority under § 16-130 

because the Darling and Krejci properties were neither urban 

nor suburban in character and included a substantial portion 

of agricultural lands which were rural in character. It reasoned 

that the properties were not located in close proximity to city 

amenities, they were located in the middle of an isolated and 

undeveloped part of the county, the predominant use of the 

properties and the surrounding lands was agricultural, not a 

single residence existed in Area #9, and the annexation memorandum was silent as to any development plans for the annexed 

area. The district court noted that the facts in this case were 

similar to those present in Wagner v. City of Omaha, 156 Neb. 

163, 55 N.W.2d 490 (1952), where this court held that a city 

had exceeded its authority by annexing agricultural land that 

was rural in character.

Alternatively, the district court found that the ordinance did 

not comply with the requirement in § 16-130 that annexed 

lands be contiguous or adjacent to the city limits. It observed 

that the City’s “boundaries” were not adjacent to the Darling 

and Krejci properties. Instead, the district court reasoned, the 

City was attempting to rely on the baseball complex area, an 

“isolated island of municipal control” completely detached 

from the body of the City. The district court characterized this 

as a separate distinct mass that was not a part of the City, such 

that it could be used for an adjacency connection.

The district court declared the ordinance invalid and void 

and permanently enjoined the City from taking any action to 

enforce it. The district court did not address whether the ordinance was enacted for an improper purpose.

The City timely appealed both actions. We docketed its 

appeals as cases Nos. S-20-405 and S-20-406 and consolidated 

them for oral argument and disposition.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

The City’s assignments of error in cases Nos. S-20-405 and 

S-20-406 are essentially identical. It assigns, consolidated, 
- 348 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

DARLING INGREDIENTS v. CITY OF BELLEVUE

Cite as 309 Neb. 338

that the district court erred by finding (1) that the Darling and 

Krejci properties were rural in character and thus could not be 

annexed and (2) that the Darling and Krejci properties were 

neither contiguous nor adjacent to the City.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1,2] An action to determine the validity of an annexation 

ordinance and enjoin its enforcement sounds in equity. SID No. 

196 of Douglas Cty. v. City of Valley, 290 Neb. l, 858 N.W.2d 

553 (2015). On appeal from an equity action, an appellate 

court decides factual questions de novo on the record and, as to 

questions of both fact and law, is obligated to reach a conclusion independent of the trial court’s determination. Id.

[3] The issue of whether the character of the land to be 

annexed meets the legal standard prescribed in the statute is a 

question of law. Id. Although the characterization of the land 

depends on the particular facts of each case, the question of 

whether the facts fulfill a particular legal standard presents a 

question of law. Id.

ANALYSIS

Legal Framework.

[4,5] We begin by reviewing the legal principles that govern 

this challenge to the City’s proposed annexation. The City’s 

power to annex territory is not absolute. It must be exercised in 

strict accord with the statute conferring it. See Cornhusker Pub. 

Power Dist. v. City of Schuyler, 269 Neb. 972, 699 N.W.2d 352 

(2005). In this case, the City’s annexation power is controlled 

by § 16-130, which provides in relevant part:

(2) . . . [T]he mayor and city council of a city of the 

first class [located in whole or in part within the bound

aries of a county having a population in excess of 100,000 

inhabitants but less than 250,000 inhabitants] may by 

ordinance at any time include within the corporate limits 

of such city any contiguous or adjacent lands, lots, tracts, 

streets, or highways as are urban or suburban in character and in such direction as may be deemed proper. Such 
- 349 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

DARLING INGREDIENTS v. CITY OF BELLEVUE

Cite as 309 Neb. 338

grant of power shall not be construed as conferring power 

upon the mayor and city council to extend the limits of 

such a city over any agricultural lands which are rural 

in character.

(3) The invalidity of the annexation of any tract of 

land in one ordinance shall not affect the validity of the 

remaining tracts of land which are annexed by the ordinance and which otherwise conform to state law.

In addition to the statutory limitations expressed in § 16-130 

and other similar statutes, we have also held that it is improper 

for an annexation to be solely motivated by an increase in tax 

revenue. SID No. 196 of Douglas Cty. v. City of Valley, supra, 

citing Witham v. City of Lincoln, 125 Neb. 366, 250 N.W. 

247 (1933).

[6] The burden is on one who attacks an annexation ordinance, valid on its face and enacted under lawful authority, to 

prove facts to establish its invalidity. County of Sarpy v. City 

of Papillion, 277 Neb. 829, 765 N.W.2d 456 (2009). See, also, 

Williams v. County of Buffalo, 181 Neb. 233, 147 N.W.2d 776 

(1967) (passage of ordinance presumes finding that conditions 

and limitations in delegating statute exist). The City claims 

Darling and Krejci failed to meet this burden in these cases. 

We address its arguments below.

Character of Area #9.

The City first contends the district court erred in finding 

that, in annexing Area #9, the City exceeded the power conferred to it by § 16-130(2) to annex lands that are “urban or 

suburban in character” but not “agricultural lands which are 

rural in character.” We have defined the term “rural” as “of or 

pertaining to the country as distinguished from a city or town,” 

and we have defined the term “urban” as “of or belonging to 

a city or town.” See Wagner v. City of Omaha, 156 Neb. 163, 

168, 55 N.W.2d 490, 494 (1952). In asserting that Area #9 

is urban or suburban in character, despite being largely used 

for agriculture, the City points to commercial and industrial 

establishments and housing developments nearby, as well as 
- 350 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

DARLING INGREDIENTS v. CITY OF BELLEVUE

Cite as 309 Neb. 338

other annexations in the vicinity and future land use designations for Area #9. The City also relies on the opinions of the 

Sarpy County assessor and its land use planner that Area #9 is 

urban or suburban in character.

Like the district court, Darling and Krejci primarily analogize this case to Wagner v. City of Omaha, supra. In Wagner, 

we held that 90 to 103 acres of unplatted agricultural lands 

were rural in character. The entire area annexed was composed 

of 490 acres that, in addition to the unplatted agricultural 

lands, included 588 dwellings and 2,116 residents, a limited 

retail area, and several small industries. Id. Under the law 

applicable in Wagner, we declared the entire annexation ordinance invalid. Darling and Krejci argue that Wagner is dispositive here, given the size and agricultural use of Area #9 and 

the relative lack of residents, structures, improvements, city 

services, and development in the immediate area. The annexed 

area in Wagner does share some similarities with Area #9, but 

as we quite recently observed, our jurisprudence on this topic 

has developed in the decades since our decision in Wagner. See 

County of Sarpy v. City of Gretna, ante p. 320, ___ N.W.2d 

___ (2021).

In County of Sarpy v. City of Gretna, supra, we reviewed 

the factors our cases have considered in deciding whether an 

area is rural or urban or suburban in character. We explained 

that in addition to current uses, we have considered other factors, including the location of the area, its character, its proximity to growth areas, the degree of development of the land 

involved, and contemplated future development. Id., citing SID 

No. 196 of Douglas Cty. v. City of Valley, 290 Neb. 1, 858 

N.W.2d 553 (2013); Swedlund v. City of Hastings, 243 Neb. 

607, 501 N.W.2d 302 (1993); Voss v. City of Grand Island, 186 

Neb. 232, 182 N.W.2d 427 (1970); Sullivan v. City of Omaha, 

183 Neb. 511, 162 N.W.2d 227 (1968); Bierschenk v. City of 

Omaha, 178 Neb. 715, 135 N.W.2d 12 (1965); and Wagner v. 

City of Omaha, supra. We thus proceed to consider the evidence in our record as to those factors.
- 351 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

DARLING INGREDIENTS v. CITY OF BELLEVUE

Cite as 309 Neb. 338

We look first to Area #9’s location. The district court characterized Area #9 as “isolated” and “well removed from the 

[C]ity.” It likened Area #9 to the rural lands in Wagner v. City 

of Omaha, supra, and distinguished it from the annexed area 

in Swedlund v. City of Hastings, supra, and Bierschenk v. City 

of Omaha, supra. We recognize differences between Area #9 

and the cases distinguished by the district court, but they and 

other cases are nonetheless instructive because they consider 

features of an area’s location that influence its character. 

Those features include the disputed area’s proximity to housing developments, parks, schools, industry, local thoroughfares, 

and other common features of urban or suburban life. See, 

Swedlund v. City of Hastings, supra; Bierschenk v. City of 

Omaha, supra. See, also, Shields v. City of Kearney, 179 Neb. 

49, 136 N.W.2d 174 (1965).

After considering the evidence in the record regarding what 

is present in the surrounding areas, we conclude that Area #9 is 

not isolated and is instead near features that suggest an urban 

or suburban character. Highway 75, a major arterial roadway, 

runs just outside the western edge of Area #9. On the other 

side of Highway 75, less than 1 mile from Area #9, are several 

residential subdivisions and an elementary school. Another 

residential subdivision, Normandy Hills, is immediately south 

of Area #9. While not part of the City, we find that Offutt AFB, 

located less than 1 mile north of Area #9, is also informative as 

to Area #9’s character. The nearby presence of a military base 

that employs approximately 10,000 people suggests an area 

that is urban or suburban rather than rural in character. Also 

within a 1-mile radius of Area #9 at the time of trial were a 

commercial storage establishment and six industrial establishments, including the Darling plant. Finally, the baseball complex to the east of Area #9, even if attempts to operate it had 

been unsuccessful as of the time of trial, is also more indicative 

of an area that is urban or suburban in character than one that 

is rural in character.

As for current uses, Area #9 is not entirely used for agriculture. A part of Area #9—the Darling plant—has been used 
- 352 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

DARLING INGREDIENTS v. CITY OF BELLEVUE

Cite as 309 Neb. 338

for industrial purposes since the 1940’s. The easternmost portion of Area #9 is zoned industrial, and there was no evidence 

that it had ever been put to any particular use.

[7] Much of Area #9 was zoned and being used for agricultural purposes at the time of trial and had been used in that 

fashion for years before. But in applying the same statutory 

requirements to cities of various classes, we have long held 

that the use of land for agricultural purposes does not necessarily mean it is rural in character. See, e.g., Swedlund v. City 

of Hastings, supra; Omaha Country Club v. City of Omaha, 

214 Neb. 3, 332 N.W.2d 206 (1983); Voss v. City of Grand 

Island, 186 Neb. 232, 182 N.W.2d 427 (1970). We have said 

that “[i]t is the nature of its location as well as its use which 

determines whether it is rural or urban in character.” Sullivan 

v. City of Omaha, 183 Neb. 511, 514, 162 N.W.2d 227, 

229-30 (1968). We have also emphasized that land need not 

already be zoned and developed into a nonagricultural use 

before it can be annexed. See SID No. 196 of Douglas Cty. v. 

City of Valley, 290 Neb. 1, 858 N.W.2d 553 (2015). Instead, 

lands may be currently utilized in an agricultural fashion and 

yet, due to other factors, be urban or suburban in character 

and thus subject to annexation. See Voss v. City of Grand 

Island, supra.

One factor we have found that can render land urban or 

suburban in character despite being currently put to an agricultural use is contemplated future development. In SID No. 

196 of Douglas Cty. v. City of Valley, supra, we considered 

evidence of contemplated future residential development as 

a justification for the City’s classifying the subject property 

as urban or suburban and upheld the annexation. Similarly, 

in County of Sarpy v. City of Gretna, ante p. 320, 332, ___ 

N.W.2d ___, ___ (2021), we were not convinced that the city’s 

annexation was invalid, even where its plans for development 

of the annexed land “will take time.” That is to say, future 

development plans for the annexed land need not be imminent 

as Darling suggested at oral argument.
- 353 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

DARLING INGREDIENTS v. CITY OF BELLEVUE

Cite as 309 Neb. 338

Here, the evidence reflects contemplated future development 

to transition Area #9 from agricultural use to nonagricultural 

use. According to the comprehensive plan, the City anticipates 

the whole of Area #9 will be used for industrial and other nonagricultural purposes in the future, based on its proximity to a 

proposed industrial park and Offutt AFB.

The City was not the only party that envisioned development in Area #9’s future. As noted above, the Krejci property 

was listed for sale. The listing’s division of the property into 

several “small industrial lots,” its references to nearby major 

thoroughfares and the thousands of cars that drive by the 

property each day, its depiction of the property in reference 

to nearby developed areas, and its statement that the property 

was included in the City’s “Master Plan for Industrial Use” all 

suggest that Krejci, a longtime owner and developer of real 

property in the area, viewed the farmland as ripe for industrial development. Krejci counters that the real estate listing, 

if anything, demonstrates the rural and agricultural character 

of the property, because the property has not actually been 

sold. We are not persuaded. There are many factors that may 

prevent a property from selling, and we have no evidence that 

explains in any meaningful detail why Krejci’s attempts to 

market his property as a site for industrial development have 

not proved successful.

We have also considered evidence of development in the 

vicinity of the contested area to determine its character. See 

County of Sarpy v. City of Gretna, supra, citing Bierschenk v. 

City of Omaha, 178 Neb. 715, 135 N.W.2d 12 (1965). In this 

case, the City was not aware of any proposed or planned development of Area #9 itself. However, affidavits by City officials 

cited continuous and future growth and development in the 

area as a reason for annexing Area #9. The City’s comprehensive plan projected population growth between 2000 and 2030 

requiring the City to double its footprint and encouraged the 

City to annex land before it was developed. In particular, it recommended immediate annexation if commercial development 

occurred in the region of Area #9. The comprehensive plan 
- 354 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

DARLING INGREDIENTS v. CITY OF BELLEVUE

Cite as 309 Neb. 338

anticipated significant population growth in the area around the 

intersection southwest of Area #9 and expected it to become 

the City’s “new southern gateway.” The comprehensive plan 

classified the section of Highway 75 bordering Area #9 as a 

principal arterial and recommended planning a major regional 

activity center for the area southwest of Area #9. Changes to 

Highway 75 and intersections near Area #9 had been approved 

to address existing congestion caused by development in the 

area and anticipated population growth. Maps in evidence 

show that in 2019, several neighborhoods just to the west and 

northwest of Area #9 were annexed as part of the same development plan that annexed Area #9. The City had also initiated 

procedures to annex the Normandy Hills development immediately south of Area #9.

[8] In evaluating all of this evidence, we also bear in mind 

that the standard we have articulated for determining whether 

an annexation is invalid based on the character of the land 

sought to be annexed is deferential to the municipality. Not 

only is the proposed annexation presumed to be valid with 

the challenger bearing the burden to demonstrate invalidity, 

our test asks whether the city has used the power of annexation “arbitrarily and irrationally . . . to include lands entirely 

disconnected, agricultural in character, and bearing no rational 

relation to the legitimate purposes of annexation.” County of 

Sarpy v. City of Gretna, ante p. 320, 329, ___ N.W.2d ___, ___ 

(2021), quoting SID No. 196 of Douglas Cty. v. City of Valley, 

290 Neb. 1, 858 N.W.2d 553 (2015) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). See, also, Voss v. City of Grand Island, 186 Neb. 232, 

182 N.W.2d 427 (1970).

Given the evidence we have discussed regarding Area #9’s 

location, its present use, and its contemplated future uses 

and existing plans for development, we cannot conclude that 

the City acted arbitrarily or irrationally in annexing Area #9 

or that Area #9 bears no rational relation to the legitimate 

purposes of annexation. Accordingly, we find that the district 

court erred in finding the ordinance that annexed Area #9 to be 

invalid based on the character of Area #9.
- 355 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

DARLING INGREDIENTS v. CITY OF BELLEVUE

Cite as 309 Neb. 338

We reach this conclusion even though some of the land 

within Area #9 had greenbelt tax valuation status and the 

City’s planning commission recommended against annexing 

such land. In County of Sarpy v. City of Gretna, supra, we 

found the greenbelt tax assessment status of the annexed territory not to be evidence of rural character. We reasoned that 

greenbelt status involved a legislative determination regarding 

taxation and market value and found nothing to support it as a 

restriction on the city’s annexation authority.

Contiguous or Adjacent Requirement.

[9,10] Having concluded that the district court erred in determining that the character of Area #9 precluded the City from 

annexing it, we must continue on to consider the City’s assertion that the district court incorrectly determined that Area #9 

was not “contiguous or adjacent” to the City as required by 

§ 16-130. We have used the terms “contiguous” and “adjacent” 

synonymously to mean adjoining, touching, and sharing a 

common border. See County of Sarpy v. City of Papillion, 277 

Neb. 829, 765 N.W.2d 456 (2009). A municipality may annex 

several tracts as long as one tract is substantially adjacent to 

the municipality and the other tracts are substantially adjacent 

to each other. Id.

There is no dispute that the Darling property shares a common border with the area of the City that includes the baseball 

complex and that the Krejci property is substantially adjacent 

to the Darling property. There is also no argument that the 

annexation of Area #9 amounted to what we have described 

as “strip” or “corridor” annexation, in which a municipality 

impermissibly attempts to establish adjacency by seeking to 

annex a relatively narrow piece of land bordering its corporate limits to reach a larger tract of land some distance away. 

See, e.g., County of Sarpy v. City of Gretna, 273 Neb. 92, 727 

N.W.2d 690 (2007); Cornhusker Pub. Power Dist. v. City of 

Schuyler, 269 Neb. 972, 699 N.W.2d 352 (2005); Johnson v. 

City of Hastings, 241 Neb. 291, 488 N.W.2d 20 (1992). This, 

the City contends, should be the beginning and the end of 
- 356 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

DARLING INGREDIENTS v. CITY OF BELLEVUE

Cite as 309 Neb. 338

any argument as to whether Area #9 is contiguous and adjacent 

to the City.

The district court, however, was persuaded by Darling’s 

and Krejci’s argument that the annexation was invalid because 

the area that includes the baseball complex did not share a 

border with the rest of the City. The district court dubbed 

this an “island” annexation and determined it was contrary 

to the adjacency requirement of § 16-130. The district court 

found support for its conclusion in County of Sarpy v. City of 

Papillion, supra. In that case, we observed that our prior cases 

had explained the reason for the adjacency requirement “is the 

idea that a city, both by name and use, is one entity, a collective body of people gathered together in one mass, not separated into distinct masses, and having a community of interest 

because they are residents of the same place.” Id. at 837, 765 

N.W.2d at 464.

We find that Area #9 is adjacent and contiguous to the City 

for purposes of § 16-130. Darling’s and Krejci’s true adjacency 

objection is to the 2009 annexation of the area that includes 

the baseball complex. That area does indeed appear to be isolated from the rest of the City, and its annexation may well 

have created “distinct masses” within the City. See County of 

Sarpy v. City of Papillion, supra. But the annexation of the 

area including the baseball complex was not before the district 

court in this case, and it is not before us now. Not only was 

that annexation not challenged in this case, but under Neb. 

Rev. Stat. § 18-1718 (Reissue 2012), any action or proceeding 

brought to contest an annexation by a city must be brought 

within 1 year from the effective date of the annexation or be 

forever barred. Even if the annexation of the area including 

the baseball complex was improper, the time for challenging it 

has long since expired.

Because the area including the baseball complex was 

annexed into the City and was not subject to challenge in this 

case, it can be used to establish adjacency. And there is no 

dispute that Area #9 is adjacent and contiguous to the area of 

the City that includes the baseball complex. Consequently, the 
- 357 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

DARLING INGREDIENTS v. CITY OF BELLEVUE

Cite as 309 Neb. 338

district court erred in finding that Area #9 was not contiguous 

or adjacent to the City under § 16-130.

Purpose of Annexation.

In addition to the arguments discussed above, Darling and 

Krejci alleged in the district court that the annexation was 

invalid because it was solely motivated by an increase in tax 

revenue. They now argue that we should affirm the district 

court’s decisions on this basis.

The district court, however, found it dispositive that the 

ordinance was invalid under the character and adjacency 

requirements of § 16-130, and it did not address the improper 

purpose challenges. We will not consider this issue that has 

not been addressed by the district court. See, e.g., Speece v. 

Allied Professionals Ins. Co., 289 Neb. 75, 853 N.W.2d 169 

(2014). However, because Darling and Krejci challenged the 

annexation ordinance on this basis, we remand the causes to 

the district court for further proceedings to consider Darling’s 

and Krejci’s improper purpose challenges. See id.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons explained above, we reverse the decisions 

of the district court finding that Area #9 did not satisfy the 

requirements of § 16-130 and remand the causes for further 

proceedings.

Reversed and remanded for 

further proceedings.

Miller-Lerman, J., not participating.

Cassel, J., concurring.

In County of Sarpy v. City of Gretna,

 1 a majority of this 

court untethered certain municipalities 2 from the traditional 

understanding of the statutory prohibition against annexation 

1 County of Sarpy v. City of Gretna, ante p. 320, ___ N.W.2d ___ (2021).

2 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 17-407(2) (Cum. Supp. 2020) (applicable to cities of 

second class and villages located wholly or partially within county having 

population greater than 100,000 but less than 250,000).
- 358 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

DARLING INGREDIENTS v. CITY OF BELLEVUE

Cite as 309 Neb. 338

of “agricultural lands which are rural in character.” 3 Although 

I dissented from that decision, I recognize that it is now binding precedent. 4

The statutory language applicable here governing certain 

other cities 5 is in all relevant respects identical to the statute 

in City of Gretna.

 6 Unsurprisingly, the court’s language here 

follows that precedent. At least, in the instant case, the tracts 

at issue were essentially surrounded by properties which might 

reasonably be characterized as urban or suburban in character.

But this court’s path rewards municipal overreach in a race 

to extend boundaries to capture future growth in Sarpy County. 

This court should not be “shocked” 7 at the wave of preemptive 

annexations likely to follow.

3 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 16-117 (Cum. Supp. 2020). Accord, County of Sarpy 

v. City of Papillion, 277 Neb. 829, 765 N.W.2d 456 (2009); Wagner v. City 

of Omaha, 156 Neb. 163, 55 N.W.2d 490 (1952).

4 See, e.g., State on behalf of Kaaden S. v. Jeffery T., 303 Neb. 933, 932 

N.W.2d 692 (2019).

5 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 16-130(2) (Cum. Supp. 2020) (applicable to cities 

of first class located wholly or partially within county having population 

greater than 100,000 but less than 250,000).

6 See, City of Gretna, supra note 1; § 17-407(2).

7 See Casablanca (Warner Bros. 1942).