Opinion ID: 1283443
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: null and void versus permanent injunction

Text: The district court was thus correct in issuing a permanent injunction as to the entirety of ordinance No. 1527 and as to only the 4-mile Highway 370 tail described in the second paragraph of ordinance No. 1526, which is section F of the appendix A map. We find no merit to Sarpy's assignment of error that the district court failed to specifically declare these attempted annexations null and void. In fact, the district court states in its order: [T]his Court concludes that Papillion's `strip' or `corridor' annexation attempts sought through Ordinances #1526 and #1527 are invalid, and therefore must be declared null and void. As to ordinance No. 1527, the court later states the entire ordinance must be struck down. As to ordinance No. 1526, the court concluded that only the second full paragraph needed to be struck and that the ordinance would be invalidated as to that provision. We conclude it to be of no consequence that the court failed to state in its order after the sentence beginning with It is Therefore Ordered and Adjudged that these provisions were null and void. The remedy for an annexation in violation of § 16-117 is a permanent injunction, and that is the remedy Sarpy received.