(1) The Revisor of Statutes, in preparing supplements and reissued or replacement volumes for publication and distribution, shall not alter the sense, meaning or effect of any act of the Legislature, but may (a) renumber sections and parts of sections, (b) rearrange sections, (c) change reference numbers to agree with renumbered chapters, articles, or sections, (d) substitute the proper section, article, or chapter numbers for the terms the preceding section, this article, this act, and like terms, (e) strike out figures where they are merely a repetition of written words, (f) change capitalization for the purpose of uniformity, and (g) correct manifest clerical or typographical errors. The Revisor of Statutes shall omit all titles to acts, all enacting and repealing clauses, all declarations of emergency, and all validity and construction clauses, including sections stating the effective date of salary changes, unless, from their nature, it may be necessary to retain some of them to preserve the full meaning and intent of the law.
(2) In addition to the authority provided in subsection (1) of this section, the Revisor of Statutes, in preparing supplements and reissued or replacement volumes for publication and distribution, may (a) remove obsolete matter within any section, (b) omit obsolete sections stating the effective date of salary changes, (c) remove from within any section language which the Supreme Court has held to be unconstitutional without impairing the constitutionality of the remainder of the section, (d) omit any section or sections, or any complete act, which the Supreme Court has held to be unconstitutional, (e) reinstate a section as it existed immediately prior to an amendment which the Supreme Court has held unconstitutional, (f) correct faulty internal references, and (g) harmonize provisions with former acts of the Legislature. Changes made under the provisions of this subsection shall be effective only upon publication in the supplement or replacement volume, which publication shall contain a brief note explaining the change made and citing this subsection as the authority therefor. No change made under the provisions of this subsection shall effect any change in the substantive meaning of any section. If the Revisor of Statutes is in doubt whether or not a specific change is authorized by this subsection, he shall not make the change but shall propose it as a legislative bill at the next regular session of the Legislature.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1979–2024 · leading case:
State v. Karel, 284 N.W.2d 12 (Neb. 1979).
State v. Karel, 284 N.W.2d 12 (Neb. 1979).
· cites it 12× “45 was placed in the Revised Statutes by the Revisor of Statutes pursuant to the duties imposed upon him by section 49-705, R. R. S. 1943, he substituted the specific reference, ‘‘any provision of *576 sections 39-601 to 39-6,122,” for the words, “this act,” of section 2(106) of…”
State Ex Rel. Wright v. Pepperl, 380 N.W.2d 259 (Neb. 1986).
· cites it 10× “It would appear that, from a reading of Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 49-705 , 49-765, and 49-767 (Reissue 1984), the Revisor of Statutes is obligated by law to print and publish the laws as enacted by the Legislature, and not to exercise his or her own discretion in excising a portion of…”
Stuthman v. Stuthman, 515 N.W.2d 781 (Neb. 1994).
· cites it 5× “The court in Karel noted that under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 49-705 (1) (Reissue 1988), the Revisor of Statutes had the authority, in preparing supplements and reissued or replacement volumes of the Revised Statutes, to renumber and rearrange sections.”
Tegra Corp. v. Boeshart, 976 N.W.2d 165 (Neb. 2022).
· cites it 2× “See, also, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 49-705 (Reissue 2021). 40 Kremer v.”
Duggan v. Beermann, 544 N.W.2d 68 (Neb. 1996).
· cites it 2× “Our review of the record indicates that at least some of the *435 alleged errors regarding the legal sufficiency of Measure #408 had also been complained of when the previous term limits proposal, Measure #407, was challenged.”
State v. Urbano, 589 N.W.2d 144 (Neb. 1999).
“Stat. § 49-701 et seq. (Reissue 1998), in preparing supplements and reissued or replacement volumes of the Nebraska Revised Statutes, to renumber and rearrange statutory sections, to remove obsolete matter within any section, and to harmonize provisions of Nebraska’s statutes.”
State ex rel. Spung v. Evnen, 317 Neb. 800 (Neb. 2024).
· cites it 2× “slative act shall be held unconstitutional except by the concurrence of five judges,” 18 as well as prior statements of this court that an opinion of Nebraska’s Attorney General, although entitled to “substantial weight” and respectful consideration, “has no controlling…”
State ex rel. Spung v. Evnen, 317 Neb. 800 (Neb. 2024).
· cites it 2× “slative act shall be held unconstitutional except by the concurrence of five judges,” 18 as well as prior statements of this court that an opinion of Nebraska’s Attorney General, although entitled to “substantial weight” and respectful consideration, “has no controlling…”
State v. Sundling, 531 N.W.2d 7 (Neb. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “It has been observed that “[c]hanges made by the Revisor of Statutes in preparing supplements and reissued or replacement volumes of the Revised Statutes, under the provisions of section 49-705, R. R. S. 1943, cannot change the substantive meaning of any statute as enacted by…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 49-705(1) — 2 cases
Stuthman v. Stuthman, 515 N.W.2d 781 (Neb. 1994).
“The court in Karel noted that under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 49-705 (1) (Reissue 1988), the Revisor of Statutes had the authority, in preparing supplements and reissued or replacement volumes of the Revised Statutes, to renumber and rearrange sections.”
State v. Karel, 284 N.W.2d 12 (Neb. 1979).
“45 was placed in the Revised Statutes by the Revisor of Statutes pursuant to the duties imposed upon him by section 49-705, R. R. S. 1943, he substituted the specific reference, ‘‘any provision of *576 sections 39-601 to 39-6,122,” for the words, “this act,” of section 2(106) of…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 49-705(2) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Wright v. Pepperl, 380 N.W.2d 259 (Neb. 1986).
“It would appear that, from a reading of Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 49-705 , 49-765, and 49-767 (Reissue 1984), the Revisor of Statutes is obligated by law to print and publish the laws as enacted by the Legislature, and not to exercise his or her own discretion in excising a portion of…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 49-705(2)(c) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Wright v. Pepperl, 380 N.W.2d 259 (Neb. 1986).
“It would appear that, from a reading of Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 49-705 , 49-765, and 49-767 (Reissue 1984), the Revisor of Statutes is obligated by law to print and publish the laws as enacted by the Legislature, and not to exercise his or her own discretion in excising a portion of…”
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.