filed, the city commission lacked jurisdiction to pass an ordinance of annexation. Id. at 64, 216 P.2d at 404. ¶ 13 In reaching it 99 Ill.App.2d 60, 241 N.E.2d 23, 23-24 (1968) (affirming judgment in annexation challenge because the village failed to allege facts necessary to justify the territory’s annexation and the record reflected that the purportedly annexed territory was not contiguous as the relevant statute required, rendering the annexation void); James v. City of Pittsburg, 195 Kan. 462, 407 P.2d 503, 507 (1965) (reversing and entering judgment in favor of property owners because city acted outside its jurisdiction under a statute specifying the acreage and amount of area that must touch city’s boundary line); Sharkey v. City of Butte, 52 Mont. 16, 155 P. 266, 267-68 (1916) (<HOLDING>); cf. Town of Scottsdale v. State ex rel.
holding void ab initio ordinance proscribing punishment in excess of that authorized in charter holding that citys proceedings to annex an entire tract were void ab initio for lack of jurisdiction because it included annexation of unplatted tracts in violation of statute holding annexation ordinance void holding that an action taken in violation of the automatic stay is void ab initio holding that a state court judgment that modifies a discharge in bankruptcy is void ab initio and the rookerfeldman doctrine would not bar federal court jurisdiction