46-1,106. Bonds; judicial approval; determination of legality; procedure.
Upon the hearing of such special proceedings, the court shall have power and jurisdiction to examine and determine the legality and validity of, and approve and confirm or disapprove and disaffirm, each and all of the proceedings for the organization of such district under sections 46-101 to 46-128, from and including the petition for the organization of the district, and all other proceedings which may affect the legality or validity of the bonds and the order of the sale and the sale thereof. The court in inquiring into the regularity, legality, or correctness of such proceedings shall disregard an error, irregularity, or omission which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties to such special proceedings, and it may approve and confirm such proceedings in part and disapprove and declare illegal or invalid other and subsequent parts of the proceedings. The court shall find and determine whether the notice of the filing of the petition has been duly given and published for the time and in the manner prescribed in section 46-1,104. The costs of the special proceedings may be allowed and apportioned between the parties in the discretion of the court. If the court shall determine the proceedings for the organization of the district legal and valid and the proceedings for the voting and issuing of the bonds legal and valid, the board of directors shall then prepare a written statement beginning with the filing of the petition for the organization of the district, and including all subsequent proceedings for the organization of the district and voting and issuing of the bonds, and ending with the decree of the court finding the proceedings for the organization of the district and the proceedings for the voting and issuing of the bonds legal and valid. The written statement shall be certified under oath by the board of directors of the district.
Source
Annotations
Approval of contract with United States and approval of bonds were proper in one proceeding. Ainsworth Irr. Dist. v. Harms, 170 Neb. 228, 102 N.W.2d 429 (1960).
Refusal of district court to validate bonds of irrigation district was sustained where no feasible plan of irrigation was presented. Kinnan v. France, 113 Neb. 99, 202 N.W. 452 (1925).
Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.
LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.
The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.
You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.
The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.
Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.