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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-109 (2026)

Report regarding lottery revenue

✓ 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 Department of Revenue shall, at the conclusion of each calendar quarter, provide to the most populous city within the county in which the Nebraska State Fair is held written notification of the amount estimated by the department to equal ten percent of the lottery revenue collected during the calendar quarter to be transferred to the Nebraska State Fair Support and Improvement Cash Fund. If the state fair is scheduled to be held in a different county from that in which the most recent state fair was held, the written notification required by this section shall be made to the most populous city within the county in which the state fair is scheduled to be held beginning with the written notification made at the conclusion of the first calendar quarter during the calendar year in which the state fair is held or scheduled to be held in such county. The department shall provide a copy of the written notification to the Department of Administrative Services.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 262 cases (120 in the last 5 years), 2008–2026 · leading case: State v. Boche, 885 N.W.2d 523 (Neb. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Boche, 885 N.W.2d 523 (Neb. 2016). · cites it 15× “§ 2-109(E) (rev. 2014) is necessary whenever a litigant challenges the constitutionality of a statute, regard- less of how that constitutional challenge may be characterized.”
Smith v. Wedekind, 923 N.W.2d 392 (Neb. 2019). · cites it 17× “§ 2-109(E) (rev. 2014), which is required whenever a party is "presenting a case involving the federal or state constitutionality of a statute.”
In re Interest of Steven S., 27 Neb. Ct. App. 831 (Neb. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 31× “We conclude that Jennette’s brief has complied with the rules for an appellant’s brief which seeks affirmative relief, and the cover of her brief states she is a “CROSS APPELLANT,” thus notifying this court from the outset that she is seeking affirmative relief.”
State v. Catlin, 953 N.W.2d 563 (Neb. 2021). · cites it 25× “§ 2-109(E) (rev. 2014) is determined de novo upon a review of the record.”
Gallagher v. Graham (In re Est. of Graham), 919 N.W.2d 714 (Neb. 2018). · cites it 4× “§ 2-109 (rev. 2014). As such, we decline to address his assignments of error on cross-appeal.”
State v. Denton, 949 N.W.2d 344 (Neb. 2020). · cites it 22× “§ 2-109(E) (rev. 2014). 4. Constitutional Law: Rules of the Supreme Court: Statutes: Notice: Appeal and Error.”
State v. Epp, 910 N.W.2d 91 (Neb. 2018). · cites it 5× “§ 2-109(E) (rev. 2014). ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Epp assigns that the district court erred in failing to (1) grant an evidentiary hearing, (2) appoint counsel, and (3) grant postconviction relief.”
Great N. Ins. Co. v. Transit Auth. of Omaha, 958 N.W.2d 378 (Neb. 2021). · cites it 10× “§ 2-109(D) (rev. 2014) may result in an appellate court waiving the error, proceeding on a plain error review only, or declining to conduct any review at all.”
State v. Sutton, 24 N.W.3d 43 (Neb. 2025). · cites it 15× “§ 2-109(E) (rev. 2024) is determined de novo upon a review of the record.”
In re Interest of Becka P., 27 Neb. Ct. App. 489 (Neb. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 4× “Ct. R. App. P. § 2-101(C) (rev. 2014), once a notice of appeal is filed, all other parties become appellees and can file a cross-appeal.”
State v. Pauly, 972 N.W.2d 907 (Neb. 2022). · cites it 6× “Plain error is error plainly evident from the record and of such a nature that to leave it uncorrected would result in damage to the integrity, reputation, or fairness of the judicial process.”
Sellers v. Reefer Sys., 943 N.W.2d 275 (Neb. 2020). · cites it 14× “§ 2-109(F) (rev. 2014) for justification of appellate attorney fees.”
Show all 262 citing cases →
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-109(A)(4): 1 case
State v. Gnewuch, 3 N.W.3d 295 (Neb. 2024).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-109(B): 3 cases
City of Ord v. Koch, No. A-19-188 (Neb. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 2020).
Koch v. Mielak, No. A-20-293 (Neb. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2021).
State v. Jackson, No. A-14-954 (Neb. Ct. App. Sept. 15, 2015).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-109(C): 2 cases
State v. Vanderford, 980 N.W.2d 397 (Neb. 2022).
Jama v. Seu, No. A-23-497 (Neb. Ct. App. May 28, 2024).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-109(C)(3): 1 case
State v. Ortiz, No. A-22-945 (Neb. Ct. App. June 20, 2023).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-109(D): 33 cases
Cnty. of Lancaster v. Cnty. of Custer, 985 N.W.2d 612 (Neb. 2023).
State v. Pauly, 972 N.W.2d 907 (Neb. 2022). “Plain error is error plainly evident from the record and of such a nature that to leave it uncorrected would result in damage to the integrity, reputation, or fairness of the judicial process.”
In re Interest of Steven S., 27 Neb. Ct. App. 831 (Neb. Ct. App. 2019). “We conclude that Jennette’s brief has complied with the rules for an appellant’s brief which seeks affirmative relief, and the cover of her brief states she is a “CROSS APPELLANT,” thus notifying this court from the outset that she is seeking affirmative relief.”
Great N. Ins. Co. v. Transit Auth. of Omaha, 958 N.W.2d 378 (Neb. 2021). “§ 2-109(D) (rev. 2014) may result in an appellate court waiving the error, proceeding on a plain error review only, or declining to conduct any review at all.”
North Star Mut. Ins. Co. v. Miller, 977 N.W.2d 195 (Neb. 2022).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-109(D)(1): 51 cases
D.W. v. A.G., 303 Neb. 42 (Neb. 2019).
Est. of Schluntz v. Lower Repub. Nat. Res. Dist., 915 N.W.2d 427 (Neb. 2018).
D.W. v. A.G., 926 N.W.2d 651 (Neb. 2019).
In re Interest of Steven S., 27 Neb. Ct. App. 831 (Neb. Ct. App. 2019). “We conclude that Jennette’s brief has complied with the rules for an appellant’s brief which seeks affirmative relief, and the cover of her brief states she is a “CROSS APPELLANT,” thus notifying this court from the outset that she is seeking affirmative relief.”
Great N. Ins. Co. v. Transit Auth. of Omaha, 958 N.W.2d 378 (Neb. 2021). “§ 2-109(D) (rev. 2014) may result in an appellate court waiving the error, proceeding on a plain error review only, or declining to conduct any review at all.”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-109(D)(1)(b): 1 case
North Star Mut. Ins. Co. v. Miller, 977 N.W.2d 195 (Neb. 2022).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-109(D)(1)(c): 1 case
In re Interest of Josselynn E., No. A-12-455 (Neb. Ct. App. May 7, 2013).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-109(D)(1)(d): 9 cases
Transcanada Keystone Pipeline, LP v. Dunavan (In re Application No. Op-0003), 932 N.W.2d 653 (Neb. 2019).
Steffy v. Steffy, 843 N.W.2d 655 (Neb. 2014).
Wilson v. Wilson, 867 N.W.2d 651 (Neb. Ct. App. 2015).
Schroeder v. Schroeder, No. A-16-067 (Neb. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2017).
Gutierrez v. Luna-Funes, No. A-17-1177 (Neb. Ct. App. July 24, 2018).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-109(D)(1)(e): 84 cases
Cnty. of Lancaster v. Cnty. of Custer, 985 N.W.2d 612 (Neb. 2023).
Houser v. Am. Paving Asphalt, 907 N.W.2d 16 (Neb. 2018).
Stalder v. Anne T. (In re S.T.), 912 N.W.2d 262 (Neb. 2018).
Great N. Ins. Co. v. Transit Auth. of Omaha, 958 N.W.2d 378 (Neb. 2021). “§ 2-109(D) (rev. 2014) may result in an appellate court waiving the error, proceeding on a plain error review only, or declining to conduct any review at all.”
Steffy v. Steffy, 843 N.W.2d 655 (Neb. 2014).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-109(D)(1)(f): 5 cases
State v. Dill, 913 N.W.2d 470 (Neb. 2018).
State v. Dill, 300 Neb. 344 (Neb. 2018).
State v. Edwards, 767 N.W.2d 784 (Neb. 2009).
Sturzenegger v. Father Flanagan's Boys'home, 754 N.W.2d 406 (Neb. 2008).
Jamie N. v. Kenneth M., 23 Neb. Ct. App. 1 (Neb. Ct. App. 2015).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-109(D)(1)(g): 4 cases
State v. Vanderford, 980 N.W.2d 397 (Neb. 2022).
Carlini v. Gray Television Grp., No. A-15-1239 (Neb. Ct. App. May 2, 2017).
Anderson Excavating Co. v. City of Omaha, No. A-19-484 (Neb. Ct. App. May 5, 2020).
Jama v. Seu, No. A-23-497 (Neb. Ct. App. May 28, 2024).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-109(D)(1)(h): 3 cases
Swanson v. Swanson, No. A-20-613 (Neb. Ct. App. Apr. 6, 2021).
Beason v. Elite Staffing, No. A-22-044 (Neb. Ct. App. Oct. 11, 2022).
Peterson & Foster Law v. Fiala, No. A-23-334 (Neb. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2024).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-109(D)(1)(h)(i): 1 case
Korth v. Karpf, No. A-25-205, A-25-259 through A-25-261 (Neb. Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2026).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-109(D)(1)(i): 6 cases
City of Ord v. Koch, No. A-19-188 (Neb. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 2020).
Koch v. Mielak, No. A-20-293 (Neb. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2021).
Rodgers v. Rodgers, No. A-20-631 (Neb. Ct. App. May 4, 2021).
Kluck v. Kluck, No. A-22-723 (Neb. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2023).
Williams v. Combat Vets. Motorcycle Assn., No. A-23-676 (Neb. Ct. App. May 28, 2024).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-109(D)(4): 61 cases
In re Interest of Steven S., 27 Neb. Ct. App. 831 (Neb. Ct. App. 2019). “We conclude that Jennette’s brief has complied with the rules for an appellant’s brief which seeks affirmative relief, and the cover of her brief states she is a “CROSS APPELLANT,” thus notifying this court from the outset that she is seeking affirmative relief.”
In re Interest of Becka P., 27 Neb. Ct. App. 489 (Neb. Ct. App. 2019). “Ct. R. App. P. § 2-101(C) (rev. 2014), once a notice of appeal is filed, all other parties become appellees and can file a cross-appeal.”
Gallagher v. Graham (In re Est. of Graham), 919 N.W.2d 714 (Neb. 2018). “§ 2-109 (rev. 2014). As such, we decline to address his assignments of error on cross-appeal.”
State v. Pauly, 972 N.W.2d 907 (Neb. 2022). “Plain error is error plainly evident from the record and of such a nature that to leave it uncorrected would result in damage to the integrity, reputation, or fairness of the judicial process.”
Great N. Ins. Co. v. Transit Auth. of Omaha, 958 N.W.2d 378 (Neb. 2021). “§ 2-109(D) (rev. 2014) may result in an appellate court waiving the error, proceeding on a plain error review only, or declining to conduct any review at all.”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-109(E): 53 cases
State v. Boche, 885 N.W.2d 523 (Neb. 2016). “§ 2-109(E) (rev. 2014) is necessary whenever a litigant challenges the constitutionality of a statute, regard- less of how that constitutional challenge may be characterized.”
Smith v. Wedekind, 923 N.W.2d 392 (Neb. 2019). “§ 2-109(E) (rev. 2014), which is required whenever a party is "presenting a case involving the federal or state constitutionality of a statute.”
State v. Catlin, 953 N.W.2d 563 (Neb. 2021). “§ 2-109(E) (rev. 2014) is determined de novo upon a review of the record.”
State v. Denton, 949 N.W.2d 344 (Neb. 2020). “§ 2-109(E) (rev. 2014). 4. Constitutional Law: Rules of the Supreme Court: Statutes: Notice: Appeal and Error.”
State v. Epp, 910 N.W.2d 91 (Neb. 2018). “§ 2-109(E) (rev. 2014). ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Epp assigns that the district court erred in failing to (1) grant an evidentiary hearing, (2) appoint counsel, and (3) grant postconviction relief.”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-109(F): 19 cases
Sellers v. Reefer Sys., 943 N.W.2d 275 (Neb. 2020). “§ 2-109(F) (rev. 2014) for justification of appellate attorney fees.”
Millard Gutter Co. v. Farm Bureau Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 889 N.W.2d 596 (Neb. 2016).
White v. White, 896 N.W.2d 600 (Neb. 2017).
Escobar v. JBS USA, 25 Neb. Ct. App. 527 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Joshua M., 838 N.W.2d 1 (Neb. Ct. App. 2013).
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.