Court Opinion

ID: 9686751
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:04:51.336275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:45:11.049699
License: Public Domain

Broadfoot, J.
(concurring). 1 concur in the result in this case and with the reasons given therefor. However, I cannot agree with that part of the opinion inserted as a guide to the trial court wherein it is held that the supplement to the complaint was barred by lapse of time. The reasoning in that part of the opinion, if applied to a new action commenced three years after the adoption of the annexation ordinance, would be proper. However, in this case the plaintiff commenced its action within the statutory period and has tried to have the issues resolved in a trial. All of the delay herein is because of the appeals taken by the city. Under the particular circumstances in this case I do not believe that the request to supplement the complaint was made after an undue length of time. I would affirm the trial court in all respects.