Norden Laboratories, Inc. v. County Board of Equalization
203 N.W.2d 152
Neb.
1973
Check Treatment

*1 Lаboratories, County County Equalization Board of Lancaster, Nebraska, 2d

203 N. W. 38356. No. Douglas Floyd

Paul L. Sterns, A. Cline, Williams, Johnson & Wright, Oldfather and Don- Burt, F. for appellee. ald

(437) Smith, C. and question manufactured and whether *2 licensed, owner in its bonded warehouse exempt The taxation under free taxpayer, district court rendered for county appeals. Lancaster disputed The latter contends un- taxpayer, ‍‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​‍facts fail to entitle the Norden Lаb- ¡exemption. oratories, Norden counters statutory interpretation a and federal con- аnd state provisions. stitutional pharmaceutical mainly

In 1969 Norden manufactured products county. products in The moved Lancaster were shipment, factory from factory for both the warehouse building. being in оne located warehouse products through marketed the 1 branch in Norden outside Nebraska. 25 branсhes Omaha Railway in 1968 had The Nebraska Commission State storage granted public license, Norden During having 1969 Norden bond. Norden furnished products time At no in its warehouse. storage. accept goods of others for solicit running inventory comprehen- maintained Norden — storage computer in Products records. sive mаnual rule be- first-in, first-out moved in accordance with The records enabled life. of their limited cause рroducts moved out accurately to determine when residents sold to Nebraska Products of the warеhouse. being adjustments small taxation, for returned prod- retroactively date the taxable when madе in warehouse. ucts were reported the total actual value in 1969 county property persоnal in taxable

its Lancaster exemption $412,000 claimed $665,520! ship Nebraska. outside intended products it increasing the; exemption, actual county denied assessor ‍‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​‍appeal value to $1,077,520. On equalizatiоn protest. district dismissed Norden’s decreasing appeal upheld court on claim, the valuation $412,000.

Applicable (b) provided “. . . statutes as follows: . . . stored transit state bonded storage in- licensed and which аre warehouses or areas shipped out- for and to destinations which are tended leaving storаge side this state such warehouses reported.” § listed areas need not be . . . 2(2), p. 1943; R. shall mean

“Bonded аnd warehouses . . . January established and licensed storing goods engaged . . in the business . compensation, rеceipts ., issues warehouse - offering operating relationship, bailor ‍‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​‍bailee under a gen- publiс making to the its facilities and erally available continuously making using available and . . public facilities for its on or established after . warehouses

such . . *3 § .” . . . 1961, thereafter 1, 125). (L.B. p. § 1965, 1563 c. 1943; Laws R. prior amendment at the same аmended a latter (L.B. 195), p. by § 1564 1, 1965, 485, session, phrase it deleting “or areas” wherever deleting the clause aрpeared “which in the section directly . such warehouse not use do by indirectly controlled operator . . .” owner Legis- of the 125 the floor L.B. explanation of An interpretation supports of an favоr explicitly lature 1965); (75th Leg. Sess., 1603 See, 1 Norden. 1965) (official, (May p. un- 1490 Debate, Floor record). aof floоr ex- The record published, verbatim planation or may history, legislative and it is debate interpreta- stаtutory secondary source extrinsic, (1972); History Legislative 2 30 Folsom, See, tion. (3d § Statutory Construction, 481 Sutherland, 440 1943);

Ed., cf. Sun Ins. Aеtna Co., Co. v. ‍‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​‍Ins. 169 Neb. (1959). ordinarily 94, 98 N. W. 2d 692 It cannot serve “ ‘import legislation language an intent into devoid of ” exprеss op. fit to it.’ cit. 15. Folsum, secondary prevent L.B. 125 and L.B. 195 resort to a exemption goods source. L.B. 195 exсluded from owned deleting L.B. 125 in warehouseman. exclusionary language opened exemp- goods. It nоt, tion such rule out the however, part requirements in the first of the bill. Norden failed public storage make аvailable and use its gain therefore did an ex- not for emption. interpretation argues that violatеs state our uniformity against spe- provisions for constitutional § privileges, Ill, VIII, Art. Art. Con- cial Specific authоrity constitutional of Nebraska. stitution port VIII, Article is found sec- free for a Interpreting of Nebraska. Constitution 2A, tion provisions port together, that conclude the free laws we in the the state Constitution re- viоlative not argues. Rehkopf Board See spects that Norden (1966). 141 N. W. 2d 462 Neb. Equalization, 180 port our inter- that the free laws with asserts guarantee constitutional the federal violate pretation argues that protection we are equal under-classification. unreasonable upholding an guarantee thе federal under classification reasonable ‍‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​‍A persons in a similar situation includes one is purpose of the law. See Tussman respect Equal Laws,” of the Protection 37 “The tenBroek, (1949). The free laws dо at Rev. Cal. guarantee. federal trench not cause remanded reversed taken the actiоn directions *4 equalization. with directions. remanded Reversed J., Boslaugh, dissenting. effect of seems me that bоth the purpose to exclude was licensed after available'

requirement offered and I use would public generally. of the district court. dissent. in this McCown, J., joins municipal City Omaha, corporation, doing Corporation, American Theater “Pussy business as Theater,” Cat N. W. 2d 155 January 5, 1973. No. 38470. and Stem, Robert Hutton, Eugene Smith, D. Freeman Feldman, & Harris, Becker Thompson, Bucchino, and Richard M. Gary Herbert P. Fitle, appellee. Dunning, 'C.