Neb. Rev. Stat. § 16-637 — NE Code / Chapter 16 / Section 16-637
View Statute 16-637
Status: in_force

Any party feeling aggrieved by any special tax or assessment, or proceeding for improvements in a city of the first class, may pay such special taxes assessed and levied upon his, her, or its property, or such installments thereof as may be due at any time before the special tax or assessment shall become delinquent, under protest, and with notice in writing to the city treasurer that he, she, or it intends to sue to recover the special tax or assessment, which notice shall particularly state the alleged grievance and the ground for the grievance. Such party shall have the right to bring a civil action within sixty days to recover so much of the special tax or assessment paid as he, she, or it shows to be illegal, inequitable, and unjust, the costs to follow the judgment or to be apportioned by the court, as may seem proper, which remedy shall be exclusive. The city treasurer shall promptly report all such notices to the city council for such action as may be proper. No court shall entertain any complaint that the party was authorized to make and did not make to the city council, sitting as a board of equalization, nor any complaint not specified in such notice fully enough to advise the city of the exact nature thereof, nor any complaint that does not go to the groundwork, equity, and justness of such tax. The burden of proof to show such tax or part thereof invalid, inequitable, and unjust shall rest upon the party who brings the suit.

Laws 1901, c. 18, § 48, LV, p. 259;

Laws 1901, c. 19, § 4, p. 307;

Laws 1907, c. 13, § 1, p. 111;

R.S.1913, § 4931;

C.S.1922, § 4099;

Laws 1925, c. 50, § 11, p. 199;

C.S.1929, § 16-628;

R.S.1943, § 16-637;

Laws 1967, c. 67, § 15, p. 226;

Laws 2016, LB704, § 103;

Laws 2019, LB194, § 46.

A special tax assessment which violates the federal Constitution is illegal, and thus a claim that a special tax assessment violates the federal Constitution can be raised and adjudicated in claims made under this section. Francis v. City of Columbus, 267 Neb. 553, 676 N.W.2d 346 (2004).

A special tax assessment which violates the federal Constitution is illegal, and thus a claim that a special tax assessment violates the federal Constitution can be raised and adjudicated in claims made under this section. Francis v. City of Columbus, 267 Neb. 553, 676 N.W.2d 346 (2004).

As a prerequisite to bringing suit for a refund under this section, a party must pay the tax under protest before it becomes delinquent. Francis v. City of Columbus, 267 Neb. 553, 676 N.W.2d 346 (2004).

As a prerequisite to bringing suit for a refund under this section, a party must pay the tax under protest before it becomes delinquent. Francis v. City of Columbus, 267 Neb. 553, 676 N.W.2d 346 (2004).

This section provides an adequate remedy for adjudicating a claim that a special tax assessment violates the federal Constitution. Francis v. City of Columbus, 267 Neb. 553, 676 N.W.2d 346 (2004).

This section provides an adequate remedy for adjudicating a claim that a special tax assessment violates the federal Constitution. Francis v. City of Columbus, 267 Neb. 553, 676 N.W.2d 346 (2004).

City may not take property for street improvement by eminent domain, and then nullify the value of the property taken by levying local assessment for the improvement in excess of the special benefits conferred. Hayman v. City of Grand Island, 135 Neb. 873, 284 N.W. 737 (1939).

City may not take property for street improvement by eminent domain, and then nullify the value of the property taken by levying local assessment for the improvement in excess of the special benefits conferred. Hayman v. City of Grand Island, 135 Neb. 873, 284 N.W. 737 (1939).

Where there is a variation between the established gradeline and the permanent street improvement, failure of property owner, who knows such fact while the work is progressing, to file timely objections to the assessment because of such defect, will estop him from raising the question under this section by injunction. Kister v. City of Hastings, 108 Neb. 476, 187 N.W. 909 (1922).

Where there is a variation between the established gradeline and the permanent street improvement, failure of property owner, who knows such fact while the work is progressing, to file timely objections to the assessment because of such defect, will estop him from raising the question under this section by injunction. Kister v. City of Hastings, 108 Neb. 476, 187 N.W. 909 (1922).