23-129. Special tax; approval by voters; number required; effect.
If it appears that a majority of the total number of votes cast upon the proposition at the election in which the proposition is submitted are in favor of the proposition, except the proposal for bonds as provided in section 23-3501, which require a majority of votes cast upon the proposition at the election at which the proposition is submitted, and it also appears that the requirements of the law have been fully complied with, the same shall be entered at large by the county board upon the book containing the record of its proceedings, and it shall then have power to levy and collect the special tax in the same manner as other county taxes are collected. Propositions thus acted upon cannot be rescinded by the county board.
Source
Annotations
Favorable vote of two-thirds of electors is required to issue bonds of sanitary drainage district. Lang v. Sanitary District of Norfolk, 160 Neb. 754, 71 N.W.2d 608 (1955).
Where levy in excess of constitutional limit is required, two-thirds vote in favor of bond issue is required. State ex rel. Shelley v. Board of County Commissioners of Frontier County, 156 Neb. 583, 57 N.W.2d 129 (1953).
Approval of levy for improvement of mail route road did not of itself authorize levy above constitutional limit. Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. County of Gosper, 153 Neb. 805, 46 N.W.2d 147 (1951).
Provisions are not applicable to erection of courthouse. Majority vote is sufficient. State ex rel. Polk County v. Marsh, 106 Neb. 760, 184 N.W. 901 (1921).
Provisions are not applicable to special acts. State ex rel. Douglas County v. Cornell, 54 Neb. 72, 74 N.W. 432 (1898).
Section is applicable to submission of proposition to sell lands of county. Stenberg v. State ex rel. Keller, 50 Neb. 127, 69 N.W. 849 (1897); Stenberg v. State ex rel. Keller, 48 Neb. 299, 67 N.W. 190 (1896).
This section applies to courthouse bonds. Fenton v. Yule, 27 Neb. 758, 43 N.W. 1140 (1889).
Section means two-thirds of total vote cast. State ex rel. Mann v. Anderson, 26 Neb. 517, 42 N.W. 421 (1889).
Purchaser need look no further than record to determine compliance with requirements of the law. Valley County v. McLean, 79 F. 728 (8th Cir. 1897).
Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.
LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.
The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.
You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.
The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.
Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.