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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-3255 (2026)

Improvement projects; apportionment of benefits; appeal

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

From any order or decision of the board of directors of the natural resources district, an appeal may be taken to the district court by any person aggrieved by filing an undertaking in the sum of two hundred dollars with such sureties as may be approved by the clerk of the district court. Such undertaking shall be conditioned that the appellant will prosecute such appeal without delay and will pay all costs adjudged against him in the district court. Such undertaking shall be executed to the board of directors of the natural resources district and may be sued on in the name of the obligee. Where the project area is confined to the limits of one county, the appeal shall be taken to the district court of that county. When such project includes lands in two or more counties, the appeal shall be taken to the district court of the county in which the largest portion of the land which is claimed to be affected adversely by the order or decision appealed from lies. The appeal must be taken within thirty days after such decision or order has been entered by the secretary of the board of directors.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1982–2006 · leading case: Japp v. Papio-Missouri River Nat. Resources Dist., 716 N.W.2d 707 (Neb. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Japp v. Papio-Missouri River Nat. Resources Dist., 716 N.W.2d 707 (Neb. 2006). · cites it 34× “During a hearing on the appellants’ motion for a temporary restraining order, the district court dismissed the action due to the appellants’ failure to meet the 30-day appeal requirement of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-3255 (Reissue 1997). The appellants filed this appeal, claiming that…”
Fisher v. Lower Platte North Nat. Resources Dist., 322 N.W.2d 403 (Neb. 1982). · cites it 2× “See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-3255 (Reissue 1977). The denial was based on the ground that the same flood control project requested by the Fisher petition had already been approved and adopted by the district as a general benefit project and was in the process of implementation.”
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.