Case Information
*1 Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 09/15/2017 01:11 AM CDT - 132 -
N ebraska s upreme C ourt a dvaNCe s heets 297 N ebraska r eports FARMERS CO-OP v . STATE Cite as 297 Neb. 132 F armers C ooperative , a Cooperative CorporatioN orgaNized uNder the laws oF the s tate oF N ebraska , appellaNt , v . s tate oF N ebraska et al ., appellees .
F roNtier C ooperative C ompaNy , a Cooperative CorporatioN orgaNized uNder the laws oF the s tate oF N ebraska , appellaNt , v . s tate oF N ebraska et al ., appellees .
___ N.W.2d ___ Filed July 7, 2017. Nos. S-16-312, S-16-313. supplemeNtal opiNioN Appeals from the District Court for Lancaster County: a Ndrew r. J aCobseN , Judge. Supplemental opinion: Former opinion modified. Motion for rehearing overruled.
Thomas E. Jeffers and Andrew C. Pease, of Crosby Guenzel, L.L.P., for appellants.
Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and L. Jay Bartel for appellees.
h eaviCaN , C.J., w right , m iller ‑l ermaN , C assel , k elCh , and F uNke , JJ.
p er C uriam .
Cases Nos. S-16-312 and S-16-313 are before this court on the appellees’ motion for rehearing concerning our opinion - 133 -
N ebraska s upreme C ourt a dvaNCe s heets 297 N ebraska r eports FARMERS CO-OP v . STATE Cite as 297 Neb. 132 in Farmers Co‑op v. State . 1 We overrule the motion, but we *2 modify the original opinion as follows:
(1) We withdraw the last two sentences in the paragraph preceding the subheading “(b) Frontier’s Refund Claims” and substitute the following: “Farmers appealed the Tax Commissioner’s decision to the district court for Lancaster County.” 2
(2) We withdraw the last two sentences in the paragraph preceding the subheading “(c) District Court’s Decisions” and substitute the following: “Frontier appealed the Tax Commissioner’s decision to the district court for Lancaster County.” 3
(3) We withdraw the second to the last sentence in the second paragraph under the subheading “ 3. t he C ooperatives F ailed to e stablish t hey w ere e Ntitled to r eFuNd oF t axes d eNied by t ax C ommissioNer ” and substitute the following: “Neither of the Cooperatives requested a formal hearing from the Department prior to the Tax Commissioner taking action on their refund claims, so no additional evidence was devel- oped on the record regarding the denied claims.” 4 And we withdraw the last sentence of that same paragraph, which stated, “Further, the Cooperatives did not submit any addi- tional evidence to the district court on its appeal.” 5
The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified. F ormer opiNioN modiFied . m otioN For reheariNg overruled . s taCy , J., not participating.
[1] Farmers Co‑op v. State , 296 Neb. 347, 893 N.W.2d 728 (2017). [2] Id . at 351, 893 N.W.2d at 733.
[3] Id. at 352, 893 N.W.2d at 734.
[4] Id. at 364, 893 N.W.2d at 740.
[5] Id.