Neb. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 29
Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3527 (2026)

Violations; penalty

✓ 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

Any person who (1) permits unauthorized direct access to criminal history record information, (2) knowingly fails to disseminate or make public criminal history record information of official acts as required under sections 29-209, 29-210, 29-3501 to 29-3528, and 81-1423, or (3) knowingly disseminates nondisclosable criminal history record information in violation of sections 29-209, 29-210, 29-3501 to 29-3528, and 81-1423, shall be guilty of a Class IV misdemeanor.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2022–2022 · leading case: Doe v. State, 980 N.W.2d 842 (Neb. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Doe v. State, 980 N.W.2d 842 (Neb. 2022). · cites it 4× “The district court rejected this argument, reasoning that Doe had provided “no authority for a common law duty prohibiting the dissemination of truthful information about a person’s criminal history” and concluding that “no such duty exists.” Doe has not assigned error to this…”
Doe v. State, 312 Neb. 665 (2022). · cites it 4× “The district court rejected this argument, reasoning that Doe had provided “no authority for a common law duty prohibiting the dissemination of truthful information about a person’s criminal history” and concluding that “no such duty exists.” Doe has not assigned error to this…”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3527(1): 2 cases
Doe v. State, 980 N.W.2d 842 (Neb. 2022). “The district court rejected this argument, reasoning that Doe had provided “no authority for a common law duty prohibiting the dissemination of truthful information about a person’s criminal history” and concluding that “no such duty exists.” Doe has not assigned error to this…”
Doe v. State, 312 Neb. 665 (2022). “The district court rejected this argument, reasoning that Doe had provided “no authority for a common law duty prohibiting the dissemination of truthful information about a person’s criminal history” and concluding that “no such duty exists.” Doe has not assigned error to this…”
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.