Laserfiche WebLink
<br />July 1, 20071 Volume 1 I No. 13 <br /> <br />See also: Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 95 S. Ct. 2197, 45 L. Ed. 2d <br />343 (1975). <br /> <br />See also: City of Memphis v. Greene, City of Memphis v. Greene, 451 <br />U.S. 100, 101'5. Ct. 1584, 67 L. Ed. 2d 769 (1981). <br /> <br />Revocation of Permit-City retracts approval after <br />realizing minimum lot size not met <br /> <br />Landowner says zoning director gave bad advice leading to <br />damages <br /> <br />Citation: Rohde v. City of Ogallala, 273 Neb. 689, 2007 WL <br />1575197 (2007) <br /> <br />NEBRASKA (.06/01/07)-Rohde purchased as-acre tract of land in <br />the city of Ogallala. There was an existing house on the property at <br />the time of purchase that Rohde planned to refurbish. In addition, <br />Rohde planned to build a second home on the property. <br />Rohde contacted the city zoning director, Knoepfel, for advice on <br />subdividing the property. Knoepfel told him that he needed to have <br />the property surveyed, but that the property should be subdivided into <br />two equal sized tracts. A survey was conducted, and the results were <br />submitted to the city planning commission and approved. Rohde ap- <br />plied for a subdivision, which was also approved. <br />Two days after the subdivision was approved, the commission told <br />Rohde that it had made a mistake and a permit to build the new house <br />could not be issued. The basis for this was a minimum lot size require- <br />ment of 3 acres. At the next city council meeting, Knoepfel apologized <br />for giving "improper advice," and the planning commission retracted <br />its approval of the subdivision. <br />Rohde sued the city and Knoepfel in court, alleging that his neg- <br />ligence in giving the bad advice resulted in $35,000 in damages. The <br />city and Knoepfel (collectively, the city) asked the court to dismiss the <br />case based on an act giving it immunity in such cases. The court grant- <br />ed the request to dismiss, and Rohde appealed. <br />The appeals court reversed the judgment and returned the case to <br />the lower court for further proceedings. The appeals court found that <br />there were issues as to whether Knoepfel was acting at a policy level <br />when he gave the advice, and, where there are issues of material fact, <br />dismissal was not an appropriate judgment. <br />After a trial, the lower court found "generally" in favor of the city. <br />Despite finding that Knoepfel was acting as a city agent, his actions <br />were negligent; and the negligence did cause damages to Rohde, the <br /> <br />9 <br /> <br />'. <br /> <br />167 <br />