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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-801.01 (2026)

Terms, defined

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

As used in sections 77-801 to 77-804:

(1) Nonoperating property means property owned or leased by a public service entity that does not contribute to the entity's function;

(2) Operating property means property owned or leased that contributes to a public service entity's function; and

(3) Public service entity means any person as defined in section 49-801 or entity, organized for profit under the laws of this state or any other state or government and engaged in the business of waterworks, electrical power, gas works, natural gas, telecommunications, pipelines used for the transmission of oil, heat, steam, or any substance to be used for lighting, heating, or power, and pipelines used for the transmission of articles by pneumatic or other power and all other similar or like entities.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1991–1993 · leading case: MAPCO Ammonia Pipeline, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization & Assessment, 471 N.W.2d 734 (Neb. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
MAPCO Ammonia Pipeline, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization & Assessment, 471 N.W.2d 734 (Neb. 1991). · cites it 4× “1989), separately setting forth the rulings of the State Board complained of by the appellants and the exceptions and contentions of the parties with respect to those issues.”
Mid-Am. Pipeline Co. v. Boehm, 506 N.W.2d 41 (Neb. 1993). · cites it 2× “The plaintiff, Mid-America Pipeline Company (MAPCO), is a public service entity as defined in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-801.01 (Reissue 1990).”
MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. State Bd. of Equalization & Assessment, 466 N.W.2d 80 (Neb. 1991). · cites it 2× “The Taxpayers are public service entities within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-801.01 (Reissue 1990) and own, maintain, and operate telecommunications systems in Nebraska.”
TELAMARKETING INVESTMENTS, LTD. v. State Bd. of Equalization & Assessment, 466 N.W.2d 82 (Neb. 1991). · cites it 2× “TMC and MidAmerican are public service entities within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-801.01 (Reissue 1990) and conduct business operations in Nebraska as long-distance telecommunications companies known as resellers.”
Arapahoe Tel. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization & Assessment, 466 N.W.2d 81 (Neb. 1991). · cites it 2× “The Taxpayers are public service entities within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-801.01 (Reissue 1990) and own, maintain, and operate telecommunications service businesses in Nebraska.”
Nw. Bell Tel. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization & Assessment, 471 N.W.2d 754 (Neb. 1991). · cites it 2× “The appellants in these cases are public service entities within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-801.01 (Reissue 1990) and *633 own, maintain, and operate telecommunications systems in Nebraska.”
Wauneta Tel. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization & Assessment, 471 N.W.2d 754 (Neb. 1991). · cites it 2× “The appellants in these cases are public service entities within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-801.01 (Reissue 1990) and own, maintain, and operate telecommunications systems in Nebraska.”
Clarks Tel. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization & Assessment, 471 N.W.2d 753 (Neb. 1991). · cites it 2× “The appellants in these cases are public service entities within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-801.01 (Reissue 1990) and own, maintain, and operate telecommunications systems in Nebraska.”
Dial-Net, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization & Assessment, 471 N.W.2d 752 (Neb. 1991). · cites it 2× “The appellants in these cases are public service entities within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-801.01 (Reissue 1990) and own, maintain, and operate telecommunications systems in Nebraska.”
Amoco Pipeline Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 494 N.W.2d 541 (Neb. 1993). “*274 § 77-801.01 (Reissue 1990) and own, maintain, and operate telecommunications systems in Nebraska.”
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.