- 132 - 

### N ebraska 

### S upreme 

### C ourt 

### A dva nc e 

### S
297 N ebraska 

### R eport

FARMERS CO-OP v . STATE

Cite as 297 Neb. 132



## F

armers 

## C ooperative 

## , a c ooperative c orporat

orga n ized u n der the laws o f the 

## S ta 

## N ebraska 

## , appella n t 

## , v



## . S tate 

## N ebraska et al 

## ., appellees



## . F ro n tier 

## C ooperative 

## C ompa n y 

## , a c ooperat

c orporatio n orga n ized u n der the laws o



## S tate o f 

## N ebraska 

## , appella n t 

## , v



## . S ta 

## N ebraska et al 

## ., appellees



## . ___ N.W.2d ___

Filed July 7, 2017. Nos. S-16-312, S-16-313.

suppleme n tal opi n


## Appeals from the District Court for Lancaster County:
A n drew 

## R . J a c obse n 

## , Judge. Supplemental opinion: Fo 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 eavi c a n 

## , C.J., W right 

## , M iller



## ‐ L erma n 

## , C assel 

## and F u n ke 

## , 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 Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
09/29/2017 08:11 AM CDT- 133 - 

### N ebraska 

### S upreme 

### C ourt 

### A dva nc e 

### S
297 N ebraska 

### R eport

FARMERS CO-OP v . STATE

Cite as 297 Neb. 132



## in Farmers Co‐op v. State

. 1 

## We overrule the motion, but we 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 ooperative 

## F

ailed to 

## E stablish 

## T hey 

## W ere 

## E n titled to 

## R e f u n 

## D e n ied by 

## T ax 

## C ommissio n er 

## ” and substitute the followi “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 opi n io n modi f i 

## M otio n f or reheari n g overr 

## S ta c y 

## , J., not participatin

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.