Giger v. City of Omaha

232 Neb. 676, 442 N.W.2d 182 (1989)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Giger v. City of Omaha

Nebraska Supreme Court
232 Neb. 676, 442 N.W.2d 182 (1989)

  • Written by Tanya Munson, JD

Facts

In 1983, Midlands Development Company (Midlands) purchased a development in southwest Omaha known as One Pacific Place. Midlands applied to the city of Omaha (the city) (defendant) to have the property rezoned to permit the construction of a mixed-use development consisting of retail, office, and residential buildings. Midlands submitted a final development plan and entered into four agreements with the city that incorporated the plan. The four agreements, known as the development agreement, were submitted to the city for approval. The development agreement provided that Midlands could vary the development only if the city did not find that the variation deviates from the development plan and that the variations do not violate any provisions of the Omaha Municipal Code. The development agreement also provided for more stringent restrictive ceilings and development regulations than the underlying zoning regulations, such as limiting the maximum number of office buildings where there would otherwise be no limitation. In 1985, the city passed an ordinance approving the development agreement, incorporated the development agreement as part of the ordinance, and passed five separate ordinances rezoning the property of Midlands. The city issued building permits to Midlands, and Midlands began construction on the site. Donald Giger and other neighboring property owners (the property owners) (plaintiffs) filed two lawsuits in district court. The property owners’ petition requested an order declaring the city’s rezoning ordinance and accompanying building permits void and an injunction to enjoin Midlands from developing the One Pacific Place property in any manner inconsistent with prior zoning ordinances. After a trial, the court denied the property owners’ requested relief. The property owners appealed, arguing that the city acted arbitrarily and capriciously by adopting a zoning ordinance according to an agreement between itself and Midlands because the agreement was invalid per se. The property owners claimed that rezoning by agreement was illegal contract rezoning and illegal contract rezoning occurred because the city bargained away and sold its police power.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (White, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 814,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership