Court Opinion

ID: 9739114
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:08:58.977817+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:10.063177
License: Public Domain

Shanahan, J., concurring.
Although I agree with the court’s disposition of this case on a procedural question, I do not join the majority’s expression:
Any language in Northern Natural Gas Co. v. State Bd. of Equal., 232 Neb. 806, 443 N.W.2d 249 (1989), which might support the defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs’ cases are for equalization of their personal property’s value with that of other similarly situated personal property was specifically disapproved in *259MAPCO Ammonia Pipeline v. State Bd. of Equal., 238 Neb. 565, 471 N.W.2d 734 (1991). In the MAPCO decision, we stated the process of equalization cannot be applied to property that is not taxed. The plaintiffs’ personal property cannot be equalized with property that is exempt from taxation.
The preceding expression by the majority is dicta and unnecessary for resolution of this case.