59 Nebraska opinions name it 3 courts 1922–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Nebraska courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Omaha Parking Authority v. City of Omahagreen2 sentences1997"This has been construed to mean that a provision of a home rule charter takes precedence over a conflicting state statute in instances of local municipal concern, but when the Legislature enacts a law affecting municipal affairs which is of state-wide concern, the state law takes precedence over any municipal action taken under the home rule charter." Omaha Parking Authority v. City of Omaha , 163 Neb. 97 , 104 , 77 N.W.2d 862 , 868 (1956). 1997"This has been construed to mean that a provision of a home rule charter takes precedence over a conflicting state statute in instances of local municipal concern, but when the Legislature enacts a law affecting municipal affairs which is of state-wide concern, the state law takes precedence over any municipal action taken under the home rule charter." Omaha Parking Authority v. City of Omaha , 163 Neb. 97 , 104 , 77 N.W.2d 862 , 868 (1956). | 3 | 8 |
Axberg v. City of Lincolngreen2 sentences1985In Axberg v. City of Lincoln, 141 Neb. 55, 58 , 2 N.W.2d 613, 614-15 (1942), we observed: The purpose of the home rule charter provision of the Constitution was to render the cities adopting such charter provisions as nearly independent of state legislation as was possible. 1985In Axberg v. City of Lincoln, 141 Neb. 55, 58 , 2 N.W.2d 613, 614-15 (1942), we observed: The purpose of the home rule charter provision of the Constitution was to render the cities adopting such charter provisions as nearly independent of state legislation as was possible. | 2 | 8 |
Mollner v. City of Omahagreen2 sentences2003The charter of a home rule city is its constitution.” Mollner v. City of Omaha, 169 Neb. 44, 50 , 98 N.W.2d 33, 37 (1959). 2003The charter of a home rule city is its constitution.” Mollner v. City of Omaha, 169 Neb. 44, 50 , 98 N.W.2d 33, 37 (1959). | 2 | 4 |
Consumers Coal Co. v. City of Lincolngreen2 sentences2006The very purpose of a home rule charter is to permit municipalities to *361 exercise “ ‘every power connected with the proper and efficient government of the municipality, including those powers so connected, which might lawfully be delegated to it by the legislature, without waiting for such delegation. ’ ” In re Application of Lincoln Electric System, 265 Neb. 70, 82 , 655 N.W.2d 363, 373 (2003), quoting Consumers Coal Co. v. City of Lincoln, 109 Neb. 51 , 189 N.W. 643 (1922). 2006The very purpose of a home rule charter is to permit municipalities to *361 exercise “ ‘every power connected with the proper and efficient government of the municipality, including those powers so connected, which might lawfully be delegated to it by the legislature, without waiting for such delegation. ’ ” In re Application of Lincoln Electric System, 265 Neb. 70, 82 , 655 N.W.2d 363, 373 (2003), quoting Consumers Coal Co. v. City of Lincoln, 109 Neb. 51 , 189 N.W. 643 (1922). | 1 | 9 |
City of Millard v. City of Omahagreen2 sentences1977The Nebraska Supreme Court, in City of Milford v. City of Omaha, 185 Neb. 617 , 177 N.W.2d 576 (1970), held that the Legislature may provide for the dissolution of a municipal corporation even though the municipal corporation had adopted a home rule charter. 1977The Nebraska Supreme Court, in City of Milford v. City of Omaha, 185 Neb. 617 , 177 N.W.2d 576 (1970), held that the Legislature may provide for the dissolution of a municipal corporation even though the municipal corporation had adopted a home rule charter. | 1 | 4 |
Stalder v. Anne T. (In Re S.T.)green2 sentences2018Cite as 300 Neb. 72 [7] For a state to exercise jurisdiction over a child custody dispute, it must either be the home state as defined by the UCCJEA or fall under limited exceptions to the home state requirement specified by the UCCJEA.10 Generally speaking, § 43-1238(a)(1) grants jurisdiction to the home state of the child and § 43-1238(a)(2) through (4) sets out the exceptions under which a court will have jurisdiction, even if it is not in the child’s home state.11 Here, because the county court found Nebraska was the home state under the UCCJEA, it did not address any of the exceptions und 2018See In re Guardianship of S.T. , 300 Neb. 72 , 912 N.W.2d 262 (2018). | 1 | 2 |
Dell v. City of Lincolngreen2 sentences2006See Dell v. City of Lincoln, 170 Neb. 176 , 102 N.W.2d 62 (1960). 2006See Dell v. City of Lincoln, 170 Neb. 176 , 102 N.W.2d 62 (1960). | 1 | 2 |
Lincoln Electric System v. Nebraska Public Service Commissiongreen2 sentences2006Relying on In re Application of Lincoln Electric System, 265 Neb. 70 , 655 N.W.2d 363 (2003), the court determined that the City’s home rule charter was a limitation of powers charter, giving the City the power to take certain actions without explicit, authorizing language from the Legislature. 2006Relying on In re Application of Lincoln Electric System, 265 Neb. 70 , 655 N.W.2d 363 (2003), the court determined that the City’s home rule charter was a limitation of powers charter, giving the City the power to take certain actions without explicit, authorizing language from the Legislature. | 1 | 2 |
Jacobberger v. Terrygreen2 sentences1982In the recent case of Jacobberger v. Terry, 211 Neb. 878, 881 , 320 N.W.2d 903, 905 (1982), we said: “ ‘[A] provision of a home rule charter takes precedence over a conflicting state statute in instances of local municipal concern, but when the Legislature enacts a law affecting municipal affairs which is of state-wide concern, the state law takes precedence over any municipal action taken under the home rule charter.’ Omaha *895 Parking Authority v. City of Omaha, 163 Neb. 97, 104 , 77 N.W.2d 862, 868 (1956).” In the Jacobberger case we further noted: “ ‘Whether or not an act of the legislatu 1982In the recent case of Jacobberger v. Terry, 211 Neb. 878, 881 , 320 N.W.2d 903, 905 (1982), we said: “ ‘[A] provision of a home rule charter takes precedence over a conflicting state statute in instances of local municipal concern, but when the Legislature enacts a law affecting municipal affairs which is of state-wide concern, the state law takes precedence over any municipal action taken under the home rule charter.’ Omaha *895 Parking Authority v. City of Omaha, 163 Neb. 97, 104 , 77 N.W.2d 862, 868 (1956).” In the Jacobberger case we further noted: “ ‘Whether or not an act of the legislatu | 1 | 2 |
Young v. City of Seattlegreen2 sentences1982See Young v. Seattle, 30 Wash.2d 357 , 191 P.2d 273 (1948). 1982See Young v. Seattle, 30 Wash.2d 357 , 191 P.2d 273 (1948). | 1 | 2 |
Carter v. Cartergreen2 sentences2016See Carter v. Carter, 276 Neb. 840 , 758 N.W.2d 1 (2008). 2016See Carter v. Carter, 276 Neb. 840 , 758 N.W.2d 1 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
| Hall v. Cox Cable of Omaha, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Arrow Club, Inc. v. Nebraska Liquor Control Commissiongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Belitz v. City of Omahagreen | 1 | 1 |
| City of Wewoka v. Rodmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nagle v. City of Grand Island
green
2 sentences1959In Nagle v. City of Grand Island, 144 Neb. 67 , 12 N. W. 2d 540 , we held that the procedure in condemnation is a matter of state-wide concern: “When the legislature has enacted a law affecting municipal affairs, but which are also of state-wide concern, such law takes precedence over any provisions in a home rule charter and the provisions of the charter must yield. * * * Eminent domain is the right or power to take private property for a public use. 1959In Nagle v. City of Grand Island, 144 Neb. 67 , 12 N. W. 2d 540 , we held that the procedure in condemnation is a matter of state-wide concern: “When the legislature has enacted a law affecting municipal affairs, but which are also of state-wide concern, such law takes precedence over any provisions in a home rule charter and the provisions of the charter must yield. * * * Eminent domain is the right or power to take private property for a public use. | 5 | 1951–1963 |
Carlberg v. Metcalfe
green
2 sentences1937In Consumers Coal Co. v. City of Lincoln, 109 Neb. 51 , 189 N. W. 643 , opinion by Redick, district judge, referring to home rule charters, the second point of the syllabus says: “The purpose of the constitutional provision (as to home rule charters) is to render cities independent of state legislation as to all subjects which are of strictly municipal concern; therefore, as to such matters general laws applicable to cities yield to the charter.” In Carlberg v. Metcalfe, 120 Neb. 481 , 234 N. W. 87 , Judge Day reviews briefly some of the home rule charter cases from our state and cites cases f 1937In Consumers Coal Co. v. City of Lincoln, 109 Neb. 51 , 189 N. W. 643 , opinion by Redick, district judge, referring to home rule charters, the second point of the syllabus says: “The purpose of the constitutional provision (as to home rule charters) is to render cities independent of state legislation as to all subjects which are of strictly municipal concern; therefore, as to such matters general laws applicable to cities yield to the charter.” In Carlberg v. Metcalfe, 120 Neb. 481 , 234 N. W. 87 , Judge Day reviews briefly some of the home rule charter cases from our state and cites cases f | 4 | 1937–1985 |
Schroeder v. Zehrung
green
2 sentences1942I quote from a few of the Nebraska decisions: In Consumers Coal Co. v. City of Lincoln, 109 Neb. 51 , 189 N. W. 643 , the court held: “The purpose of the consti tutional provision is to render cities independent of state legislation as to all subjects which are of strictly municipal concern; therefore, as to such matters general laws applicable to cities yield to the charter.” In Schroeder v. Zehrung, 108 Neb. 573 , 188 N. W. 237 , the following language appears in the opinion: “If a city, after having adopted a home rule charter, was still to be subject to all the provisions of the former leg 1942I quote from a few of the Nebraska decisions: In Consumers Coal Co. v. City of Lincoln, 109 Neb. 51 , 189 N. W. 643 , the court held: “The purpose of the consti tutional provision is to render cities independent of state legislation as to all subjects which are of strictly municipal concern; therefore, as to such matters general laws applicable to cities yield to the charter.” In Schroeder v. Zehrung, 108 Neb. 573 , 188 N. W. 237 , the following language appears in the opinion: “If a city, after having adopted a home rule charter, was still to be subject to all the provisions of the former leg | 4 | 1926–1942 |
State ex rel. Fischer v. City of Lincoln
green
2 sentences1982Fischer v. City of Lincoln, 137 Neb. 97 , 288 N.W. 499 (1939), wherein we noted that “In adopting a home rule charter, however, the city had the right to make provision therein for any form of local govern ment it desired, which was not in conflict with the letter and spirit of our Constitution. 1982Fischer v. City of Lincoln, 137 Neb. 97 , 288 N.W. 499 (1939), wherein we noted that “In adopting a home rule charter, however, the city had the right to make provision therein for any form of local govern ment it desired, which was not in conflict with the letter and spirit of our Constitution. | 3 | 1942–1982 |
Eppley Hotels Co. v. City of Lincoln
neutral
2 sentences1979If a home rule charter means what the words imply, why were not the people of Lincoln authorized by the Constitution to hold a charter convention or to have a local constitutional convention of their own and to vote upon the amendments to any charter by which they were formerly governed and make the charter thereby formed supersede the charter formerly existing, so long as they did not thereby violate the Constitution or general laws of the state? " (Emphasis added.) 133 Neb. at 554 -555 . 1979While a home rule charter adopted pursuant to the constitutional provision may not contravene any provisions of the Constitution or of any general statute enacted by the legislature, it is, in all other respects, binding and controlling. . . . " (Emphasis added.) 133 Neb. at 555 . | 3 | 1959–1979 |
Sandell v. City of Omaha
green
2 sentences1959The power to act in each instance is constitutional but the action taken under the power is legislative.” Niklaus v. Miller, 159 Neb. 301 , 66 N. W. 2d 824 , speaking of a home rule charter, said: “As to all subjects of strictly local municipal concern such charter cities operate free and independent of state legislation.” Sandell v. City of Omaha, 115 Neb. 861 , 215 N. W. 135 , states: “The trend of judicial pronouncement appears to sanction an enlargement of the powers of the municipality for self-government, within constitutional limits, rather than a curtailment of such powers. 1959The power to act in each instance is constitutional but the action taken under the power is legislative.” Niklaus v. Miller, 159 Neb. 301 , 66 N. W. 2d 824 , speaking of a home rule charter, said: “As to all subjects of strictly local municipal concern such charter cities operate free and independent of state legislation.” Sandell v. City of Omaha, 115 Neb. 861 , 215 N. W. 135 , states: “The trend of judicial pronouncement appears to sanction an enlargement of the powers of the municipality for self-government, within constitutional limits, rather than a curtailment of such powers. | 3 | 1934–1959 |
State ex rel. City of Lincoln v. Johnson
green
2 sentences1954Consumers Coal Co. v. City of Lincoln, 109 Neb. 51 ; Sandell v. City of Omaha, 115 Neb. 861 ; State v. Johnson, 117 Neb. 301 ; Salsbury v. City of Lincoln, 117 Neb. 465 .” The same would be true here where the construction of a reservoir is involved. 1930Up to the present time this court has decided, in cases arising under a home rule charter adopted under the constitutional provision, that voting municipal bonds for an aviation field (State v. Johnson, 117 Neb. 301 ) and that improving the streets, alleys and highways within the corporate limits of a city (Salsbury v. City of Lincoln, 117 Neb. 465 ) are subjects of strictly municipal concern. | 3 | 1930–1954 |
Salsbury v. City of Lincoln
green
2 sentences1954Consumers Coal Co. v. City of Lincoln, 109 Neb. 51 ; Sandell v. City of Omaha, 115 Neb. 861 ; State v. Johnson, 117 Neb. 301 ; Salsbury v. City of Lincoln, 117 Neb. 465 .” The same would be true here where the construction of a reservoir is involved. 1930Up to the present time this court has decided, in cases arising under a home rule charter adopted under the constitutional provision, that voting municipal bonds for an aviation field (State v. Johnson, 117 Neb. 301 ) and that improving the streets, alleys and highways within the corporate limits of a city (Salsbury v. City of Lincoln, 117 Neb. 465 ) are subjects of strictly municipal concern. | 3 | 1930–1954 |
Munch v. Tusa
green
2 sentences1956Upon the adoption of its charter the legislative act of 1921 “lost its qualities as a statutory charter or law imposed by the sovereign power of the state, and in lieu thereof, by virtue of an explicit constitutional grant, its terms then existing became a home rule charter created and to be thereafter continued in force at the will of the grantee municipality lawfully expressed, every section of which was expressly made subject to its own lawful amendments.” Munch v. Tusa, 140 Neb. 457 , 300 N. W. 385 . 1956Upon the adoption of its charter the legislative act of 1921 “lost its qualities as a statutory charter or law imposed by the sovereign power of the state, and in lieu thereof, by virtue of an explicit constitutional grant, its terms then existing became a home rule charter created and to be thereafter continued in force at the will of the grantee municipality lawfully expressed, every section of which was expressly made subject to its own lawful amendments.” Munch v. Tusa, 140 Neb. 457 , 300 N. W. 385 . | 2 | 1945–1956 |
DeLima v. Tsevi
green
2 sentences2020DeLima v. Tsevi, 301 Neb. 933 , 921 N.W.2d 89 (2018). 2020DeLima v. Tsevi, 301 Neb. 933 , 921 N.W.2d 89 (2018). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Lincoln
green
2 sentences2007Home Builders Association of Lincoln v. City of Lincoln, 271 Neb. 353 , 711 N.W.2d 871 (2006). 2007Home Builders Association of Lincoln v. City of Lincoln, 271 Neb. 353 , 711 N.W.2d 871 (2006). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Nicholson v. General Cas. Co. of Wisconsin
green
2 sentences2003Co. of Wis., 262 Neb. 879 , 636 N.W.2d 372 (2001). (b) Charter Authority of City of Lincoln LES also contends that the home rule charter of the city of Lincoln confers authority on LES to provide for-hire telecommunications services. 2003Co. of Wis., 262 Neb. 879 , 636 N.W.2d 372 (2001). (b) Charter Authority of City of Lincoln LES also contends that the home rule charter of the city of Lincoln confers authority on LES to provide for-hire telecommunications services. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Adams v. Fort Madison Community School District
green
1 sentence1996School Dist. , 182 N.W.2d 132 (1970) (Iowa Supreme Court upheld statute requiring at least a 60 percent affirmative vote in order for school district bond proposals to carry). 6 Rimarcik v. Johansen , 310 F. Supp. 61 (1970) (federal district court held that a Minnesota statutory provision requiring a 55 percent favorable vote for adoption of amendment to a home rule charter violated the "one-man, one-vote" principle and, therefore, violated the equal protection clause of the federal Constitution), vacated and remanded for reconsideration , 403 U.S. 915 (1971). 7 Brenner v. School Dist. of Kans | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Brenner v. School District of Kansas City, Missouri
green
1 sentence1996School Dist. , 182 N.W.2d 132 (1970) (Iowa Supreme Court upheld statute requiring at least a 60 percent affirmative vote in order for school district bond proposals to carry). 6 Rimarcik v. Johansen , 310 F. Supp. 61 (1970) (federal district court held that a Minnesota statutory provision requiring a 55 percent favorable vote for adoption of amendment to a home rule charter violated the "one-man, one-vote" principle and, therefore, violated the equal protection clause of the federal Constitution), vacated and remanded for reconsideration , 403 U.S. 915 (1971). 7 Brenner v. School Dist. of Kans | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Rimarcik v. Johansen
neutral
1 sentence1996School Dist. , 182 N.W.2d 132 (1970) (Iowa Supreme Court upheld statute requiring at least a 60 percent affirmative vote in order for school district bond proposals to carry). 6 Rimarcik v. Johansen , 310 F. Supp. 61 (1970) (federal district court held that a Minnesota statutory provision requiring a 55 percent favorable vote for adoption of amendment to a home rule charter violated the "one-man, one-vote" principle and, therefore, violated the equal protection clause of the federal Constitution), vacated and remanded for reconsideration , 403 U.S. 915 (1971). 7 Brenner v. School Dist. of Kans | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Lance v. Board of Education of County of Roane
green
1 sentence1996Va. 559 , 170 S.E.2d 783 (1969), cert. granted sub. nom. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Lamar Life Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission
neutral
1 sentence1996School Dist. , 182 N.W.2d 132 (1970) (Iowa Supreme Court upheld statute requiring at least a 60 percent affirmative vote in order for school district bond proposals to carry). 6 Rimarcik v. Johansen , 310 F. Supp. 61 (1970) (federal district court held that a Minnesota statutory provision requiring a 55 percent favorable vote for adoption of amendment to a home rule charter violated the "one-man, one-vote" principle and, therefore, violated the equal protection clause of the federal Constitution), vacated and remanded for reconsideration , 403 U.S. 915 (1971). 7 Brenner v. School Dist. of Kans | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Adams v. Board of Regents
green
1 sentence1996School Dist. , 182 N.W.2d 132 (1970) (Iowa Supreme Court upheld statute requiring at least a 60 percent affirmative vote in order for school district bond proposals to carry). 6 Rimarcik v. Johansen , 310 F. Supp. 61 (1970) (federal district court held that a Minnesota statutory provision requiring a 55 percent favorable vote for adoption of amendment to a home rule charter violated the "one-man, one-vote" principle and, therefore, violated the equal protection clause of the federal Constitution), vacated and remanded for reconsideration , 403 U.S. 915 (1971). 7 Brenner v. School Dist. of Kans | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Lance v. Board of Education
green
1 sentence1996School Dist. , 182 N.W.2d 132 (1970) (Iowa Supreme Court upheld statute requiring at least a 60 percent affirmative vote in order for school district bond proposals to carry). 6 Rimarcik v. Johansen , 310 F. Supp. 61 (1970) (federal district court held that a Minnesota statutory provision requiring a 55 percent favorable vote for adoption of amendment to a home rule charter violated the "one-man, one-vote" principle and, therefore, violated the equal protection clause of the federal Constitution), vacated and remanded for reconsideration , 403 U.S. 915 (1971). 7 Brenner v. School Dist. of Kans | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Kenneth R. Mancuso v. James L. Taft, Mayor green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Michelson v. City of Grand Island green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Midwest Employers Council, Inc. v. City of Omaha green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Dell v. City of Lincoln green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Jacobs v. City of Omaha green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Simpson v. City of Grand Island green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Coffin v. City of Lee's Summit neutral | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Frye v. Haas green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Speer v. Kratzenstein green | 1 | 1967–1967 |
| Bass v. County of Saline green | 1 | 1967–1967 |
| City of Omaha v. Glissmann green | 1 | 1964–1964 |
| Philson v. City of Omaha green | 1 | 1964–1964 |
| Wagner v. City of Omaha green | 1 | 1962–1962 |
| Application of City of Seward green | 1 | 1961–1961 |
| Streat v. Vermilya green | 1 | 1959–1959 |
| Niklaus v. Miller green | 1 | 1959–1959 |
| Smart v. Mayer neutral | 1 | 1959–1959 |
| Noble v. City of Lincoln green | 1 | 1959–1959 |
| Sullivan v. City of Omaha neutral | 1 | 1956–1956 |
| Pester v. City of Lincoln neutral | 1 | 1954–1954 |
| Reid v. City of Omaha green | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.