Neb. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 9
Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 9-312 (2026)

Lottery by the sale of pickle cards, defined

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

Lottery by the sale of pickle cards shall mean any gambling scheme in which participants pay or agree to pay something of value for a pickle card. Any lottery by the sale of pickle cards shall be conducted pursuant to and in accordance with the Nebraska Pickle Card Lottery Act.

Lottery by the sale of pickle cards shall not mean or include any activity authorized or regulated under the Nebraska Bingo Act, except as provided in section 9-346, the Nebraska County and City Lottery Act, the Nebraska Lottery and Raffle Act, the Nebraska Small Lottery and Raffle Act, the State Lottery Act, section 9-701, or Chapter 2, article 12, nor shall lottery by the sale of pickle cards mean or include any activity prohibited under Chapter 28, article 11.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases, 1970–2010 · leading case: North Platte State Bank v. Prod. Credit Ass'n, 200 N.W.2d 1 (Neb. 1972).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
North Platte State Bank v. Prod. Credit Ass'n, 200 N.W.2d 1 (Neb. 1972). · cites it 26× “§ 9-312 (5) (a), U. C. C. A special category called purchase money security interests was established to give those interests qualifying a special priority.”
Todsen v. Runge, 318 N.W.2d 88 (Neb. 1982). · cites it 14× “§ 9-312 (Reissue 1980) contains the rules of priority between conflicting security interests in the same collateral.”
Circle 76 Fertilizer, Inc. v. Nelsen, 365 N.W.2d 460 (Neb. 1985). · cites it 9× “§ 9-312 (Reissue 1980), a fertilizer lien claimed by the plaintiff, Circle 76 Fertilizer, Inc.”
McCoy v. Steffen, 416 N.W.2d 16 (Neb. 1987). · cites it 9× “The plaintiff further contends that the trial court erred in finding that § 9-312(2) did not give the plaintiff priority.”
Ag Servs. of Am., Inc. v. Empfield, 587 N.W.2d 871 (Neb. 1999). · cites it 10× “It is also undisputed that Empfield never made a fifing which covered his interest in the crop.”
Sherman Cnty. Bank v. Kallhoff, 288 N.W.2d 24 (Neb. 1980). · cites it 2× “Section 9-312, U. C. C., sets priorities for conflicting security interests in the same collateral.”
McGowen v. Nebraska State Bank, 427 N.W.2d 772 (Neb. 1988). · cites it 5× “The instruction read in part: The plaintiffs claim that by reason of not receiving notice, they were deprived of the opportunity to attend the sale and purchase the cattle, claiming that they were worth more than the sale price, and that they could have made an advantageous…”
Am. Charter Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Harris (In Re Harris), 107 B.R. 210 (Bankr. D. Neb. 1989). · cites it 3× “§ 9-312(2) and in 11 U.S.C. § 552 (b). Section 552 permits duly perfected security interests in certain after-acquired property to be limited based upon the equities of a case.”
Lone Oak Farm Corp. v. Riverside Fertilizer Co., 428 N.W.2d 175 (Neb. 1988). “2d 88 (1982); § 9-312(5). Appellant’s third assignment was not discussed in its brief and, in any event, is not necessary to the disposition of the appeal.”
Platte Valley Bank of North Bend v. Kracl, 174 N.W.2d 724 (Neb. 1970). · cites it 2× “Since the bank filed first, and perfected first, then clearly it has priority under section 9-312, U. C. C. Priority under this section, and the right to take possession of the collateral under section 9-503, U.”
Reilly v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 370 N.W.2d 163 (Neb. 1985). · cites it 6× “§ 9-312(2) (Reissue 1980), and further claiming the bank was estopped by its representations to the plaintiff from asserting any lien priority.”
Kunkel v. Ries (In Re Morken), 199 B.R. 940 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1996). “9-312; Neb.Rev.Stat. § 9-312; and Iowa Code § 554.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 9-312(2) — 6 cases
Circle 76 Fertilizer, Inc. v. Nelsen, 365 N.W.2d 460 (Neb. 1985). “§ 9-312 (Reissue 1980), a fertilizer lien claimed by the plaintiff, Circle 76 Fertilizer, Inc.”
McCoy v. Steffen, 416 N.W.2d 16 (Neb. 1987). “The plaintiff further contends that the trial court erred in finding that § 9-312(2) did not give the plaintiff priority.”
Am. Charter Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Harris (In Re Harris), 107 B.R. 210 (Bankr. D. Neb. 1989). “§ 9-312(2) and in 11 U.S.C. § 552 (b). Section 552 permits duly perfected security interests in certain after-acquired property to be limited based upon the equities of a case.”
Reilly v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 370 N.W.2d 163 (Neb. 1985). “§ 9-312(2) (Reissue 1980), and further claiming the bank was estopped by its representations to the plaintiff from asserting any lien priority.”
O'Neill Prod. Credit Ass'n v. Olson (In Re Olson), 22 B.R. 473 (D. Neb. 1982).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 9-312(4) — 2 cases
United States v. Mid-States Sales Co., 336 F. Supp. 1099 (D. Neb. 1971).
Melcher v. Bank of Madison, 529 N.W.2d 814 (Neb. Ct. App. 1995).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 9-312(5) — 5 cases
Todsen v. Runge, 318 N.W.2d 88 (Neb. 1982). “§ 9-312 (Reissue 1980) contains the rules of priority between conflicting security interests in the same collateral.”
Ag Servs. of Am., Inc. v. Empfield, 587 N.W.2d 871 (Neb. 1999). “It is also undisputed that Empfield never made a fifing which covered his interest in the crop.”
McGowen v. Nebraska State Bank, 427 N.W.2d 772 (Neb. 1988). “The instruction read in part: The plaintiffs claim that by reason of not receiving notice, they were deprived of the opportunity to attend the sale and purchase the cattle, claiming that they were worth more than the sale price, and that they could have made an advantageous…”
Lone Oak Farm Corp. v. Riverside Fertilizer Co., 428 N.W.2d 175 (Neb. 1988). “2d 88 (1982); § 9-312(5). Appellant’s third assignment was not discussed in its brief and, in any event, is not necessary to the disposition of the appeal.”
McCoy v. Steffen, 416 N.W.2d 16 (Neb. 1987). “The plaintiff further contends that the trial court erred in finding that § 9-312(2) did not give the plaintiff priority.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 9-312(5)(a) — 2 cases
Melcher v. Bank of Madison, 529 N.W.2d 814 (Neb. Ct. App. 1995).
Mid City Bank, Inc. v. Omaha Butcher Supply, Inc., 385 N.W.2d 917 (Neb. 1986).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 9-312(b)(1) — 1 case
Lol Fin. Co. v. Paul Johnson & Sons Cattle Co., 758 F. Supp. 2d 871 (D. Neb. 2010).
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.