Separation of power issues come in all forms. Not all of them are earthshaking. In this case, the Court held that annexations are legislative actions, and, as such, the “priority rule,” which applies to judicial actions, could not be used to avoid an annexation process. The priority rule states that when two judicial actions are brought involving the same people and the same subject matter, the first one goes first, and the second one waits in the wings. Here, there was a quiet title action and an action challenging an annexation because some of the annexed land was part of the quiet title action. The Court held that the priority rule could not be used to void annexation. Instead, the courts should wait for the quiet title action, then address the challenge to the annexation. The Court noted that the judicial branch should not coerce or limit passing legislation, only limit enforcement.