Neb. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 20
Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 20-206 (2026)

Right of privacy; defenses and privileges

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In addition to any defenses and privileges created in sections 20-201 to 20-211 and 25-840.01, the statutory right of privacy created in sections 20-201 to 20-211 and 25-840.01 shall be subject to the following defenses and privileges:

(1) All applicable federal and Nebraska statutory and constitutional defenses;

(2) As to communications alleged to constitute an invasion of privacy, the defense that the communication was made under circumstances that would give rise to an applicable qualified or absolute privilege according to the law of defamation; and

(3) All applicable, qualified, and absolute privileges and defenses in the common law of privacy in this state and other states.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1934–1998 · leading case: Neisius v. Henry, 9 N.W.2d 163 (Neb. 1943).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Neisius v. Henry, 9 N.W.2d 163 (Neb. 1943). · cites it 9× “It is urged by appellees that the applicable statute of limitations is four years as provided by section 20-206, Comp. St. 1929, which is as follows: “Within four years, an action upon a contract, not in writing, expressed or implied; an action upon a liability created by…”
State v. Hill, 577 N.W.2d 259 (Neb. 1998). “20, § 20-206. After trial, the county court found Hill guilty of counts I, II, HI, and V.”
Dep't of Banking v. McMullen, 278 N.W. 551 (Neb. 1938). · cites it 3× “1929, is remedial or penal in character, having in mind sections 20-206 and 20-208, Comp. St. 1929, which, in effect, provide that, if remedial, the action must be brought within four years, and, if penal, within one year.”
Arthur ex rel. City of Beatrice v. Trindel, 96 N.W.2d 208 (Neb. 1959). · cites it 2× “Be that as it may, we also said in the opinion on rehearing that: “It is urged that Henry could have been sued on his statutory liability without joining the surety, and that the statute of limitations would then be four years as provided by section 20-206. We do not disagree…”
Cnty. of Platte v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co., 6 F.R.D. 475 (D. Neb. 1946). · cites it 2× “2d, the court said: “Consequently, we conclude that whatever the statute of limitations may have been on any cause of action existing against Henry if no bond had been given, or on any cause of action which may have existed against him if he had not signed the bond, his…”
Poole v. Burlington N. R.R., 987 F. Supp. 753 (D. Neb. 1997). · cites it 2× “” Neb.Rev.Stat. § 20-206 (Michie 1995). “Generally, whether a publication is privileged is a question of law to be determined by the court.”
Price v. Platte Valley Pub. Power & Irrigation Dist., 298 N.W. 746 (Neb. 1941). · cites it 2× “Clearly under the pleadings and the evidence the action here is controlled by the limitations contained in section 20-206, Comp. St. 1929, as follows: “Within four years, an action upon a contract, not in writing, expressed or implied; an action upon a liability created by…”
Nebraska State Bank Liquidation Ass'n v. Vill. of Burton, 279 N.W. 319 (Neb. 1938). “It will be seen from the above statement that the last payment on the warrant was on November 27, 1931, whereas plaintiff’s original petition was filed on January 3, 1936, or more than four years after the last payment on the warrant.”
Bratt v. Wishart, 257 N.W. 258 (Neb. 1934). “Defendants pleaded the four years’ statute of limitations, referring to sections 20-206 and 20-207, Comp. St. 1929; pleaded that, under the statute of frauds, to wit, under sections 36-103 and 36-105, Comp.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.