Source

• Neb. Const. art. XIa, sec. 5 (1920);
• Adopted 1920, Constitutional Convention, 1919-1920, No. 33;
• Transferred by Constitutional Convention, 1919-1920, art. XI, sec. 5.

Annotations

1. Home rule charter

2. State concern

3. Local concern

4. Miscellaneous

1. Home rule charter

The city tax authorized by section 23-2611(5), R.S.Supp.,1971, does not contravene the Omaha city charter adopted hereunder. Dwyer v. Omaha-Douglas Public Building Commission, 188 Neb. 30, 195 N.W.2d 236 (1972).

Home rule charters of Omaha of 1922 and 1956 were adopted pursuant to this section. Wolf v. City of Omaha, 177 Neb. 545, 129 N.W.2d 501 (1964).

Under this section, Omaha adopted as its home rule charter the provisions of Chapter 116, Laws of 1921. Belitz v. City of Omaha, 172 Neb. 36, 108 N.W.2d 421 (1961); Papke v. City of Omaha, 152 Neb. 491, 41 N.W.2d 751 (1950); Roncka v. Fogarty, 152 Neb. 467, 41 N.W.2d 745 (1950); Ash v. City of Omaha, 152 Neb. 393, 41 N.W.2d 386 (1950).

Omaha home rule charter of 1956 completely superseded home rule charter of 1922. Mollner v. City of Omaha, 169 Neb. 44, 98 N.W.2d 33 (1959).

Metropolitan city of Omaha adopted legislative act in toto as its home rule charter. Reid v. City of Omaha, 150 Neb. 286, 34 N.W.2d 375 (1948).

Home rule charter amendment changing pension and retirement benefits did not deprive policemen of vested rights. Lickert v. City of Omaha, 144 Neb. 75, 12 N.W.2d 644 (1944).

Adoption of home rule charter does not, of itself, give a city jurisdiction over a street railway save in matters of strictly municipal concern. Omaha & C. B. St. Ry. Co. v. City of Omaha, 125 Neb. 825, 252 N.W. 407 (1934).

Publication of proposed charter amendment, to be submitted at election, was sufficient. Sandell v. City of Omaha, 115 Neb. 861, 215 N.W. 135 (1927).

2. State concern

Labor relations and practices were matters of statewide concern, and take precedence over any provisions in home rule charter. Midwest Employers Council, Inc. v. City of Omaha, 177 Neb. 877, 131 N.W.2d 609 (1964).

Statutes on eminent domain procedure control over city charter. Van Patten v. City of Omaha, 167 Neb. 741, 94 N.W.2d 664 (1959).

Parking Authority Law was a matter of statewide concern and not subject to home rule charter. Omaha Parking Authority v. City of Omaha, 163 Neb. 97, 77 N.W.2d 862 (1956).

A municipal corporation has only such powers as are expressly conferred upon it in matters of strictly municipal concern, and in cities which adopt a home rule charter state legislation is not excluded on subjects pertaining to state affairs. State ex rel. Hunter v. The Araho, 137 Neb. 389, 289 N.W. 545 (1940).

Omaha charter is subject to limits of Constitution and laws of state. World Realty Co. v. City of Omaha, 113 Neb. 396, 203 N.W. 574 (1925).

3. Local concern

The purpose of this section is to render a city adopting a home rule charter independent of state legislation as to all subjects which are of strictly municipal concern. State ex rel. City of Omaha v. Lynch, 181 Neb. 810, 151 N.W.2d 278 (1967).

Purpose of home rule charter provisions of Constitution is to render cities as nearly independent as possible of state legislation, subject to the general public policy of the state. State ex rel. Fischer v. City of Lincoln, 137 Neb. 97, 288 N.W. 499 (1939).

4. Miscellaneous

Constitution recognizes that villages and cities are separate and distinct. Hueftle v. Eustis Cemetery Assn., 171 Neb. 293, 106 N.W.2d 400 (1960).

Purpose of home rule charter provisions of Constitution is to render cities as nearly independent as possible of state legislation, subject to the general public policy of the state. State ex rel. Fischer v. City of Lincoln, 137 Neb. 97, 288 N.W. 499 (1939).

Publication of proposed charter amendment, to be submitted at election, was sufficient. Sandell v. City of Omaha, 115 Neb. 861, 215 N.W. 135 (1927).