Neb. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 2
Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-107 (2026)

State Fair Cash Fund; created; use; investment

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The State Fair Cash Fund is created. The Tax Commissioner may use the fund to defray the cost of implementing the check-off program under section 77-27,119.05. The Nebraska State Fair shall use the fund to carry out the public-private partnerships established to enhance the work of the Nebraska State Fair. Any money in the fund available for investment shall be invested by the state investment officer pursuant to the Nebraska Capital Expansion Act and the Nebraska State Funds Investment Act.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 44 cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: Last Pass Aviation v. W. Co-op Co., 892 N.W.2d 108 (Neb. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Last Pass Aviation v. W. Co-op Co., 892 N.W.2d 108 (Neb. 2017). · cites it 3× “§ 2-107(A)(2) (rev. 2012) and Malolepszy v.”
Lenape Resources Corp. v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., 925 S.W.2d 565 (Tex. 1996). “§ 30-2-107; Neb.Rev.Stat. § 2-107; Nev.Rev.Stat. § 104.”
State v. Williams, 774 N.W.2d 384 (Neb. 2009). “Williams again appealed to the Court of Appeals, and, on January 20, 2009, the court summarily dismissed the appeal with the following minute entry: Appeal dismissed.”
In re Est. of Scaletta, 981 N.W.2d 568 (Neb. 2022). · cites it 2× “Based on our reasoning set forth below, we agree with the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the order from which Carl Sr.”
State v. Schnell, 757 N.W.2d 732 (Neb. Ct. App. 2008). “§§ 2-107(B)(4) and (5) and 2-108(D). Despite this technical flaw, the issues raised by Schnell's filing are inherent in our consideration of the motion to dismiss the appeal.”
State v. Assad, 938 N.W.2d 297 (Neb. 2020). “2d 898 (2013) (defendant must object at trial to the admission of evidence sought to be suppressed to preserve an appellate question concerning admissibility of that evidence).”
Kaiser v. Allstate Indem. Co., 949 N.W.2d 787 (Neb. 2020). “2017) because we could not find that the district court had entered a final, appealable order.”
In re Interest of Danaisha W., 287 Neb. 27 (2013). “§ 2-107(B)(1) (rev. 2012), con- tending that there was no final, appealable order.”
E.D. v. Bellevue Pub. Sch. Dist., 909 N.W.2d 652 (Neb. 2018). “§ 2-107(A)(2) (rev. 2017), finding the ruling on the motion to dismiss was not a final, appealable order.”
Tyrrell v. Frakes, 958 N.W.2d 673 (Neb. 2021). “The appeal was submitted upon completion of oral arguments, 5 which, due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, were conducted solely by electronic means.”
Williams v. Williams, 975 N.W.2d 523 (Neb. 2022). “Because the biological father was an indispensable party to the action for grandparent visitation, but was not included in the proceedings, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and so does the appellate court.”
State v. Wells, 763 N.W.2d 380 (Neb. 2009). · cites it 2× “§ 2-107(B). [15] Gibbs, supra note 2 . [16] Jacques, supra note 3 .”
Show all 44 citing cases →
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-107(A)(1): 4 cases
In re Est. of Scaletta, 981 N.W.2d 568 (Neb. 2022). “Based on our reasoning set forth below, we agree with the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the order from which Carl Sr.”
State v. Hausmann, 758 N.W.2d 54 (Neb. Ct. App. 2008).
Elbert v. Keating, O'Gara, 22 N.W.3d 671 (Neb. 2025).
In re Est. of Jeffres, 3 N.W.3d 111 (Neb. Ct. App. 2024).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-107(A)(2): 21 cases
Last Pass Aviation v. W. Co-op Co., 892 N.W.2d 108 (Neb. 2017). “§ 2-107(A)(2) (rev. 2012) and Malolepszy v.”
State v. Williams, 774 N.W.2d 384 (Neb. 2009). “Williams again appealed to the Court of Appeals, and, on January 20, 2009, the court summarily dismissed the appeal with the following minute entry: Appeal dismissed.”
Kaiser v. Allstate Indem. Co., 949 N.W.2d 787 (Neb. 2020). “2017) because we could not find that the district court had entered a final, appealable order.”
E.D. v. Bellevue Pub. Sch. Dist., 909 N.W.2d 652 (Neb. 2018). “§ 2-107(A)(2) (rev. 2017), finding the ruling on the motion to dismiss was not a final, appealable order.”
Williams v. Williams, 975 N.W.2d 523 (Neb. 2022). “Because the biological father was an indispensable party to the action for grandparent visitation, but was not included in the proceedings, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and so does the appellate court.”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-107(A)(3): 1 case
Frans v. Waldinger Corp., 946 N.W.2d 666 (Neb. 2020).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-107(B): 2 cases
Tyrrell v. Frakes, 958 N.W.2d 673 (Neb. 2021). “The appeal was submitted upon completion of oral arguments, 5 which, due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, were conducted solely by electronic means.”
State v. Wells, 763 N.W.2d 380 (Neb. 2009). “§ 2-107(B). [15] Gibbs, supra note 2 . [16] Jacques, supra note 3 .”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-107(B)(1): 8 cases
In re Interest of Danaisha W., 287 Neb. 27 (2013). “§ 2-107(B)(1) (rev. 2012), con- tending that there was no final, appealable order.”
State v. Jacob, 960 N.W.2d 327 (Neb. 2021).
In re Interest of Ricardo T., 999 N.W.2d 562 (Neb. 2024).
Bhuller v. Bhuller, 767 N.W.2d 813 (Neb. Ct. App. 2009).
In re Masek Fam. Trust, 15 N.W.3d 379 (Neb. 2025).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-107(B)(2): 6 cases
State v. Assad, 938 N.W.2d 297 (Neb. 2020). “2d 898 (2013) (defendant must object at trial to the admission of evidence sought to be suppressed to preserve an appellate question concerning admissibility of that evidence).”
State v. Rejai, 29 N.W.3d 225 (Neb. 2026).
State v. Wells, 763 N.W.2d 380 (Neb. 2009). “§ 2-107(B). [15] Gibbs, supra note 2 . [16] Jacques, supra note 3 .”
State v. Anthony, 30 N.W.3d 187 (Neb. 2026).
State v. Foster, No. A-16-027 (Neb. Ct. App. Oct. 18, 2016).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-107(B)(4): 2 cases
State v. Schnell, 757 N.W.2d 732 (Neb. Ct. App. 2008). “§§ 2-107(B)(4) and (5) and 2-108(D). Despite this technical flaw, the issues raised by Schnell's filing are inherent in our consideration of the motion to dismiss the appeal.”
State v. Jones, 30 N.W.3d 293 (Neb. 2026).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-107(B)(5): 1 case
State v. Jones, 30 N.W.3d 293 (Neb. 2026).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.