Oral Arguments are happening now.View them on the web or via Mobile App on iPhone / iPad or Android (4.0+).

You are here

Banks v. Heineman

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version
Date: 
Tuesday, March 5, 2013

S-12-0723, Steven Banks, Jim Fuchtman, Jerry Hanefeldt, Norman MacKeprang, Virgil Miller, Marty O’Connor, Rayder Swanson, Individually, Property Owners, Taxpayers, and as Elected Supervisors, and County of Knox, State of Nebraska (Appellees/Cross-Appellants) v. Dave Heineman, Governor, Don Stenberg, Treasurer, Douglas A. Ewald, Tax Commissioner, All Executive Officials of the State of Nebraska (Appellants)

Lancaster County, Judge Paul D. Merritt, Jr.

Attorneys: David A. Domina (DominaLaw Group pcllo) and John Thomas (Knox County Attorney) --- L. Jay Bartel (Attorney General’s Office) (Appellants)

Civil: Declaratory and Injunctive relief: determination of constitutionality of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-6203; tax credit on wind generation facilities

Proceedings below: The trial court determined the individual plaintiffs had standing as taxpayers to challenge the constitutionality of the tax credit. The trial court declared the credit against the nameplate capacity tax impermissibly commuted personal property taxes paid by the taxpayers and thus was in violation of Neb. Const. art. VIII, § 4.

Issues: (l) The district court erred in determining that the credit against the nameplate capacity tax imposed on wind generation facilities granted in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-6203(5)(b) (Supp. 2011) unconstitutionally commuted taxes in violation of Neb. Const. art. VIII, § 4. (2) The district court erred in failing to determine that the credit against the nameplate capacity tax imposed on wind generation facilities granted in Neb. Rev. Stat. $ 77-6203(5)(b) (Supp. 2011) did not violate the prohibition against special legislation in Neb. Const. art. III, § 18.

Cross-Appeal: (1) The district court erred in declining to decide whether Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-6203(5)(b) is unconstitutional because it denies equal protection of law contrary to Neb. Const. art I, §§ 3 & 16 and creates an impermissible closed class in violation of the special legislation prohibition of Neb. Const. art III, § 18. (2) The district court erred in failing to hold that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-6203(5)(b) denies equal protection of law contrary to Neb. Const. art. I §§ 3 & 16, and creates an impermissible closed class and is special legislation contrary to Neb. Const. art III, § 18.

This page was last modified on Thursday, March 7, 2013