Nw. Bell Tel. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization & Assessment, 471 N.W.2d 754 (Neb. 1991). · Go Syfert
Search
Nw. Bell Tel. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization & Assessment, 471 N.W.2d 754 (Neb. 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Northwestern Bell Telephone Company, doing business as US WEST Communications, a subsidiary of US WEST, Inc.
v.
State Board of Equalization and Assessment
Nos. 90-813 through 90-820.
Nebraska Supreme Court.
Jul 12, 1991.
471 N.W.2d 754
John K. Boyer, Amy S. Bones, Norman H. Wright, and John M. Ryan, of Fraser, Stryker, Vaughn, Meusey, Olson, Boyer & Bloch, P.C., for appellants., Don Stenberg, Attorney General, and L. Jay Bartel for appellee.
Boslaugh, Caporale, Fahrnbruch, Grant, Hastings, Shanahan, White.
Published

Lead Opinion

Per Curiam.

These are appeals from the findings and order of the State Board of Equalization and Assessment dated August 15,1990, denying the appellants’ claims for property tax relief. The appellants in these cases are public service entities within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-801.01 (Reissue 1990) and[*633] own, maintain, and operate telecommunications systems in Nebraska. The appellants’ property is centrally assessed for property tax purposes pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 77-801 et seq. (Reissue 1990).

The issues raised in these appeals are disposed of by MAPCO Ammonia Pipeline v. State Bd. of Equal., ante p. 565, 471 N.W.2d 734 (1991). In light of our decision in that case, the causes are remanded to the State Board of Equalization and Assessment for further proceedings consistent with our opinion in MAPCO Ammonia Pipeline, supra, and the relief requested by the appellants.

Reversed and remanded for

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

Concurrence in Part

Shanahan, J.,

concurring in part, and in part dissenting.

For the reasons expressed in my concurrence and dissent filed in MAPCO Ammonia Pipeline v. State Bd. of Equal., ante p. 565, 471 N.W.2d 734 (1991), I also concur in part and dissent in part concerning the majority’s opinion filed in this appeal.