Neb. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 77
Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-2030 (2026)

Inheritance tax; annual statements

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

The county judge and county clerk of each county shall annually make a statement in writing to the county attorney of the county, of the party from which or the party from whom they have reason to believe a tax under sections 77-2001 to 77-2037 is due and unpaid.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1933–1997 · leading case: Hynes v. Hogan, 558 N.W.2d 35 (Neb. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hynes v. Hogan, 558 N.W.2d 35 (Neb. 1997). · cites it 2× “1994); and the enforcement of tax collections, as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-2030 (Reissue 1990).”
McDonald v. Lincoln Cnty., 4 N.W.2d 903 (Neb. 1942). · cites it 6× “to recover back taxes paid by a tax purchaser in case the taxes were void for reasons other than those set forth in section 77-2030. The remedy is by action instituted after declaration that the tax is void by a court of competent jurisdiction.”
McDonald v. Lincoln Cnty., 296 N.W. 892 (Neb. 1941). · cites it 12× “1929, would involve transgression of the constitutional rule that “No law shall be amended unless the new act contain the section or sections as amended, and the section or sections so amended shall be repealed.”
Kennedy v. Dawes Cnty., 264 N.W. 452 (Neb. 1936). · cites it 4× “Section 77-2030, Comp. St. 1929, provides, in brief, that if land has been sold for taxes by the wrongful act of the treasurer, or other officer, by error in describing land upon which no tax was due, the county shall hold the purchaser harmless by paying him the amount of the…”
Farm Inv. Co. v. Scotts Bluff Cnty., 251 N.W. 115 (Neb. 1933). · cites it 4× “The appellant contends that its action was properly brought under the provisions of section 77-2030, Comp. St. 1929, wherein it is provided that when by mistake or wrongful act of the county treasurer or other officer land has been sold on which no tax was due, etc.”
Speidel v. Scotts Bluff Cnty., 250 N.W. 555 (Neb. 1933). · cites it 5× “21 acres, which was not true, and, therefore, it is contended by the purchaser that the county should refund to him the amount he has lost, as authorized under section 77-2030, Comp. St. 1929. On the other hand, the county maintains that the tax sale certificate holder is not…”
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.