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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-4101 (2026)

Act, how cited

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

Sections 77-4101 to 77-4112 shall be known and may be cited as the Employment and Investment Growth Act.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1991–2016 · leading case: Omaha Pub. Power Dist. v. Nebraska Dep't of Revenue, 537 N.W.2d 312 (Neb. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Omaha Pub. Power Dist. v. Nebraska Dep't of Revenue, 537 N.W.2d 312 (Neb. 1995). · cites it 4× “775, the Employment and Investment Growth Act, now codified as Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 77-4101 to 77-4112 (Reissue 1990 & Cum.”
RM Campbell Indus. v. Midwest Renewable Energy, 886 N.W.2d 240 (Neb. 2016). · cites it 3× “775; Employment and Investment Growth Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 77-4101 to 77-4112 (Reissue 2009 & Cum.”
MAPCO Ammonia Pipeline, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization & Assessment, 471 N.W.2d 734 (Neb. 1991). · cites it 4× “Constitutional principle or personal predilection? For instance, § 77-202(10) provides a tax exemption for personal property of companies which qualify under Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 77-4101 et seq. (Reissue 1990), Nebraska's Employment and Investment Growth Act, the much publicized L.”
First Data Corp. v. State, Dept. of Rev., 639 N.W.2d 898 (Neb. 2002). · cites it 2× “775, codified as the Employment and Investment Growth Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-4101 et seq. (Reissue 1996, Cum.”
Ameritas Life Ins. Corp. v. Balka, 601 N.W.2d 508 (Neb. 1999). · cites it 2× “(Ameritas), appellee, and entering orders thereon, in which the court concluded that the Employment and Investment Growth Act (the Act), Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-4101 et seq. (Supp. 1987), did not provide for interest on personal property taxes recaptured under the Act and that…”
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. State, 748 N.W.2d 42 (Neb. 2008). · cites it 2× “775 is to "accomplish economic revitalization of Nebraska" and to "encourage new businesses to relocate to Nebraska, retain existing businesses and aid in their expansion, promote the creation and retention of new jobs in Nebraska, and attract and retain investment capital in…”
Concrete Indus., Inc. v. Ne Dept. of Revenue, 766 N.W.2d 103 (Neb. 2009). · cites it 2× “[21] Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 77-4101 to 77-4112 (Reissue 2003 & Supp.”
BECTON, DICKINSON & Co. v. Nebraska Dept. of Revenue, 756 N.W.2d 280 (Neb. 2008). · cites it 2× “CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed, we conclude that the order of the district court affirming the decision of the Tax Commissioner conforms to the law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable.”
Farmland Foods, Inc. v. State, 729 N.W.2d 73 (Neb. 2007). · cites it 2× “775 contradicts the limitation of the Agreement to purchases made after reaching required levels.”
Lyman-Richey Corp. v. Nebraska Dep't of Revenue, 606 N.W.2d 813 (Neb. 2000). · cites it 2× “On March 29, 1990, Lyman-Richey submitted an application to the Department for a project under the Employment and Investment Growth Act (the Act), Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 77-4101 to 77-4112 (Cum.”
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.