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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-109 (2026)

Report regarding lottery revenue

✓ current as of July 2026
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 263 cases (121 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, 302 Neb. 387 (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× “2d 509 (2014) (holding that where brief of party fails to comply with mandate of § 2-109(D), appellate court may proceed as though party failed to file brief or, alternatively, may examine proceedings for plain error).”
State v. Catlin, 308 Neb. 294 (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), 301 Neb. 594 (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, 307 Neb. 400 (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, 299 Neb. 703 (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, 308 Neb. 916 (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, 319 Neb. 581 (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× “§ 2-109(D)(4) (rev. 2014). Bob was the only party to file a notice of appeal, and therefore, he was the appel- lant.”
State v. Pauly, 972 N.W.2d 907 (Neb. 2022). · cites it 6× “§ 2-109(D) (rev. 2022) may result in an appellate court’s waiving the error, proceeding on a plain error review only, or declining to conduct any review at all.”
Sellers v. Reefer Sys., 305 Neb. 868 (Neb. 2020). · cites it 14× “§ 2-109(F) (rev. 2014) for justification of appellate attorney fees.”
Show all 263 citing cases →
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-109(A)(4) — 1 case
State v. Gnewuch, 316 Neb. 47 (Neb. 2024).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-109(B) — 3 cases
City of Ord v. Koch (Neb. Ct. App. 2020).
Koch v. Mielak (Neb. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Jackson (Neb. Ct. App. 2015).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-109(C) — 2 cases
State v. Vanderford, 980 N.W.2d 397 (Neb. 2022).
Jama v. Seu (Neb. Ct. App. 2024).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-109(C)(3) — 1 case
State v. Ortiz (Neb. Ct. App. 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). “§ 2-109(D) (rev. 2022) may result in an appellate court’s waiving the error, proceeding on a plain error review only, or declining to conduct any review at all.”
In re Interest of Steven S., 27 Neb. Ct. App. 831 (Neb. Ct. App. 2019). “2d 509 (2014) (holding that where brief of party fails to comply with mandate of § 2-109(D), appellate court may proceed as though party failed to file brief or, alternatively, may examine proceedings for plain error).”
Great N. Ins. Co. v. Transit Auth. of Omaha, 308 Neb. 916 (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., 300 Neb. 582 (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). “2d 509 (2014) (holding that where brief of party fails to comply with mandate of § 2-109(D), appellate court may proceed as though party failed to file brief or, alternatively, may examine proceedings for plain error).”
Great N. Ins. Co. v. Transit Auth. of Omaha, 308 Neb. 916 (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. (Neb. Ct. App. 2013).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-109(D)(1)(d) — 9 cases
Transcanada Keystone Pipeline, LP v. Dunavan (In Re Application No. Op-0003), 303 Neb. 872 (Neb. 2019).
Steffy v. Steffy, 287 Neb. 529 (Neb. 2014).
Schroeder v. Schroeder (Neb. Ct. App. 2017).
Gutierrez v. Luna-Funes (Neb. Ct. App. 2018).
Swanson v. Swanson (Neb. Ct. App. 2021).
— 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, 299 Neb. 1 (Neb. 2018).
Stalder v. Anne T. (In Re S.T.), 300 Neb. 72 (Neb. 2018).
Great N. Ins. Co. v. Transit Auth. of Omaha, 308 Neb. 916 (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, 287 Neb. 529 (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. (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. (Neb. Ct. App. 2017).
Anderson Excavating Co. v. City of Omaha (Neb. Ct. App. 2020).
Jama v. Seu (Neb. Ct. App. 2024).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-109(D)(1)(h) — 3 cases
Swanson v. Swanson (Neb. Ct. App. 2021).
Beason v. Elite Staffing (Neb. Ct. App. 2022).
Peterson & Foster Law v. Fiala (Neb. Ct. App. 2024).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-109(D)(1)(h)(i) — 1 case
Korth v. Karpf (Neb. Ct. App. 2026).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-109(D)(1)(i) — 6 cases
City of Ord v. Koch (Neb. Ct. App. 2020).
Koch v. Mielak (Neb. Ct. App. 2021).
Rodgers v. Rodgers (Neb. Ct. App. 2021).
Kluck v. Kluck (Neb. Ct. App. 2023).
Williams v. Combat Vets. Motorcycle Assn. (Neb. Ct. App. 2024).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-109(D)(4) — 62 cases
In re Interest of Steven S., 27 Neb. Ct. App. 831 (Neb. Ct. App. 2019). “2d 509 (2014) (holding that where brief of party fails to comply with mandate of § 2-109(D), appellate court may proceed as though party failed to file brief or, alternatively, may examine proceedings for plain error).”
In re Interest of Becka P., 27 Neb. Ct. App. 489 (Neb. Ct. App. 2019). “§ 2-109(D)(4) (rev. 2014). Bob was the only party to file a notice of appeal, and therefore, he was the appel- lant.”
Gallagher v. Graham (In Re Est. of Graham), 301 Neb. 594 (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). “§ 2-109(D) (rev. 2022) may result in an appellate court’s waiving the error, proceeding on a plain error review only, or declining to conduct any review at all.”
Great N. Ins. Co. v. Transit Auth. of Omaha, 308 Neb. 916 (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, 302 Neb. 387 (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, 308 Neb. 294 (Neb. 2021). “§ 2-109(E) (rev. 2014) is determined de novo upon a review of the record.”
State v. Denton, 307 Neb. 400 (Neb. 2020). “§ 2-109(E) (rev. 2014). 4. Constitutional Law: Rules of the Supreme Court: Statutes: Notice: Appeal and Error.”
State v. Epp, 299 Neb. 703 (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., 305 Neb. 868 (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, 296 Neb. 772 (Neb. 2017).
Escobar v. JBS USA, 25 Neb. Ct. App. 527 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018).
In re Claim of Roberts for Attorney Fees, 307 Neb. 346 (Neb. 2020).
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.