The purpose of sections 77-1343 to 77-1347.01 is to provide a special valuation for qualified agricultural or horticultural land so that the current assessed valuation of the land for property tax purposes is the value that the land would have without regard to the value the land would have for other purposes or uses. For purposes of sections 77-1343 to 77-1347.01:
(1) Agricultural or horticultural land means that land as defined in section 77-1359;
(2) Applicant means an owner or lessee;
(3) Lessee means a person leasing agricultural or horticultural land from a state or governmental subdivision which is an owner that is subject to taxation under section 77-202.11;
(4) Owner means an owner of record of agricultural or horticultural land or the purchaser of agricultural or horticultural land under a contract for sale; and
(5) Special valuation means the value that the land would have for agricultural or horticultural purposes or uses without regard to the actual value the land would have for other purposes or uses.
Notes of Decisions
Fountain II v. Douglas Cty. Bd. of Equal., 999 N.W.2d 135 (Neb. 2024).
· cites it 5× “INTRODUCTION A commercial real estate development company and a county board of equalization dispute whether a property was eligible for special valuation as agricultural or horticultural land under Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 77-1343 to 77-1347.01 (Reissue 2018) in tax year 2018.”
Cain v. Custer Cty. Bd. of Equal., 315 Neb. 809 (Neb. 2024).
· cites it 2× “” Largely as a result of this change, the Assessor increased the “total assessed value” of Cain’s property from $734,968 to $1,834,925 for tax year 2012, without improvements being made to the property during this time.”
US Ecology, Inc. v. Boyd Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 578 N.W.2d 877 (Neb. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 5× “ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR On appeal, US Ecology has identified seven assignments of error, which can be consolidated into the following two issues: (1) The Commission erred in finding that since the subject property cannot be used as agricultural land under the Nebraska Constitution,…”
US Ecology, Inc. v. Boyd Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 588 N.W.2d 575 (Neb. 1999).
· cites it 2× “IGNMENTS OF ERROR In its opinion, the Court of Appeals summarized US Ecology’s assignments of error with respect to the determination of the TERC as follows: (1) The [TERC] erred in finding that since the subject property cannot be used as agricultural land under the Nebraska…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1343(5) — 1 case
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.