Court Opinion

ID: 9700610
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:37:39.228813+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:12.327099
License: Public Domain

Boslaugh, J.,
concurring.
I concur in the judgment of the court that the judgment of the district court dismissing the petition of the plaintiff should be affirmed, but for different reasons.
The amended petition contains no allegation of an illegal expenditure of tax funds by the defendant. The affidavit of Randall Hoke, which recites that the defendant is allocating $400,000 for a new firehouse, does not say that this is illegal. Consequently, I would hold that the plaintiff failed to allege any facts showing that it had standing to seek declaratory or injunctive relief.
In reaching its decision, the court found it necessary to decide that the defendant had no duty to provide specialized firefighting services to the airport authority. It seems to me that the authority is a necessary party if its rights are to be determined. See Marsh v. Marsh, 173 Neb. 282, 113 N.W.2d 323(1962).
Hastings, C. J., joins in this concurrence.