Board of Ed. of School Dist. No. 30 of Gage County v. Winne
| Citation | 177 Neb. 431,129 N.W.2d 255 |
| Decision Date | 26 June 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 35671,35671 |
| Parties | BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 30 OF GAGE COUNTY, Nebraska, et al., Appellants, v. M. G. WINNE, County Superintendent of Schools of Gage County, Nebraska, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Nebraska |
Syllabus by the Court
1. In a case where a county superintendent exercises the power to attach territory to a school district the district is without power to maintain action to question the action of the county superintendent.
2. A school district in the State of Nebraska has no territorial integrity but is subject to the reserve power of the state exercised through the administrative authority of the state to make changes according to educational needs and principles.
3. The state may change or repeal all powers of a school district, take its property without compensation, expand or restrict its territorial area, unite the whole or a part thereof with another subdivision or agency of the state, or destroy the district with or without the consent of the citizens.
4. Injunctive relief will not, in the absence of an abuse of discretion, issue to control the acts of school boards and county superintendents within the limits of the powers conferred on them.
5. Unlawful acts or acts beyond the scope of the powers of scuh officers may be enjoined where there is no other adequate remedy available on the complaint of one whose property rights will be irreparably injured thereby.
6. Interested parties have the right of appeal from the action of the county superintendents in dissolving school districts and attaching the area to another or other districts.
7. A valid order of a county superintendent, made in accordance with statutory terms, is final as to all matters properly determined by it, unless a review thereof is sought, and as to such matters it is not subject to collateral attack.
Vasey & Rist, Beatrice, for appellants.
Merrell L. Andersen, Beatrice, Betty Peterson Sharp, Nebraska City, for appellees.
Heard before WHITE, C. J., and CARTER, MESSMORE, YEAGER, SPENCER, BOSLAUGH, and BROWER, JJ.
This is an action in equity wherein the Board of Education of School District No. 30 of Gage County, Nebraska, and Orville Weber and Walter Unvert, plaintiffs and appellants, seek injunctive relief against M. G. Winne, Superintendent of Schools of Gage County, Nebraska; Carl C. Gawart, Superintendent of Schools of Otoe County, Nebraska; Lloyd D. Halsted, Superintendent of Schools of Johnson County, Nebraska; the county treasurers, assessors, and clerks respectively of Gage and Otoe Counties; and Melvin Nieveen and Marjorie Nieveen, husband and wife, residents upon the northeast quarter of Section 30, Township 7 North, Range 9 East of the 6th P.M., in Otoe County, who are legal voters of School District No. 46 in Otoe County, Nebraska, the purpose of which is to enjoin the action of defendant Gawart as county superintendent of Otoe County in effecting a dissolution of School District No. 46 in Otoe County, and the action of the three named county superintendents in effecting a transfer of the old district and the addition of it to districts in Gage and Johnson Counties.
Issues were joined and the case was tried to the court at the conclusion of which the court found generally in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs, and by its judgment dismissed the petition of the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs filed a motion for new trial and asserted as grounds therefor that the judgment was contrary to the evidence and not sustained by sufficient evidence, and that it was contrary to law. From the judgment and the order overruling the motion for new trial the plaintiffs have appealed.
By the assignments of error in the brief on appeal the plaintiffs assert that the trial court erred in not finding for the plaintiffs and against the defendants and in not rendering judgment for the plaintiffs; that the court erred in dismissing plaintiffs' petition; and that the court erred in failing to sustain plaintiffs' motion for new trial.
In this case there is no material dispute as to any question of fact. The named defendants have not either by pleading or evidence disputed the material allegations of fact contained in the petition filed by plaintiffs.
The facts summarized out of which the determination of whether or not the court erred in its decision that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the injunctive relief which they sought are as follows: On or about May 1, 1962, the defendant Gawart was county superintendent of Otoe County, Nebraska, in which was located School District No. 46. In this district was the area of real estate which has already been described herein and in it there were pupils of school age. All such pupils were sent to other districts and tuition paid for thier instruction for more than 5 years. He proceeded pursuant to the terms of section 79-486, R.S.Supp., 1961, and section 79-420, R.S.Supp., 1961, to dissolve the district and attach the area in part to other districts in adjacent counties. He gave due and proper notice within the district of his intention to dissolve the district, and on June 4, 1962, held a meeting the purpose of which was to consider dissolution. No notice was given to parties in adjacent counties or districts and in particular he have no notice to the county superintendent or anyone in Gage County. The meeting was held but the superintendent of Gage County did not attend.
After the meeting was held a dissolution order was prepared which by its terms became effective July 5, 1962. This order was signed by each of the county superintendents. By this order a portion of School District No. 46 in Otoe County was attached to School District No. 30 of Gage County, Nebraska, a part to another district in Otoe County, and a part to a district in Johnson County, and in the order provision was made for an equal and proportionate basis for distribution of the assets and liabilities of the dissolved district among the districts to which the area was attached.
This was, according to the record, the final act of Gawart on dissolution of School District No. 46 in Otoe County, and also the attachment of portions thereof to other districts. There has been no appeal or anything in the nature of an application for appellate review of these proceedings by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
School Dist. No. 46, Sarpy County, Neb. v. City of Bellevue
...of whether school district No. 46 is a proper party to this action. We believe it is not. In the case of Board of Education v. Winne, 177 Neb. 431, 434-35, 129 N.W.2d 255, 257-58 (1964), quoting from Halstead v. Rozmiarek, 167 Neb. 652, 94 N.W.2d 37 (1959), we "In reference to the assertion......
-
Johnson v. School Dist. of Wakefield in Dixon, Wayne and Thurston Counties
...District from the action is assigned as error. This assignment of error is not well taken on the holdings in Board of Education, etc. v. Winne, 177 Neb. 431, 129 N.W.2d 255, and Hinze v. School Dist. No. 34, 179 Neb. 69, 136 N.W.2d The land requested to be transferred is owned by Mary Alice......
-
Plummer Freeholder Petition, In re
...Neb. 543, 400 N.W.2d 229 (1987); In re Hilbers Property Freehold Transfer, 211 Neb. 268, 318 N.W.2d 265 (1982); Board of Education v. Winne, 177 Neb. 431, 129 N.W.2d 255 (1964). The appellants claim they were acting as individuals rather than as a board of education when they challenged the......
-
Petition of Hinze
...v. School-District, 23 Neb. 655, 37 N.W. 493; Halstead v. Rozmiarek, 167 Neb. 652, 94 N.W.2d 37; Board of Education of School Dist. No. 30 of Gage County v. Winne, 177 Neb. 431, 129 N.W.2d 255. But, the objection was not asserted in district court at any time and for the first time was rais......