Neb. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 84
Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-1407 (2026)

Act, how cited

✓ 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

Sections 84-1407 to 84-1414 shall be known and may be cited as the Open Meetings Act.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2007–2024 · leading case: Salem Grain Co. v. City of Falls City, 924 N.W.2d 678 (Neb. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Salem Grain Co. v. City of Falls City, 924 N.W.2d 678 (Neb. 2019). · cites it 2× “Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 84-1407 to 84-1414 (Reissue 2008 & Supp.”
Salem Grain Co. v. Consol. Grain & Barge Co., 900 N.W.2d 909 (Neb. 2017). · cites it 2× “3 Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 84-1407 to 84-1414 (Reissue 2008 & Supp.”
Kocontes v. McQuaid, 778 N.W.2d 410 (Neb. 2010). · cites it 2× “[50] See, Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 84-1407 through 84-1414 (Reissue 2008 & Supp.”
City of Elkhorn v. City of Omaha, 725 N.W.2d 792 (Neb. 2007). · cites it 2× “The pivotal issue is whether Omaha, in adopting its annexation ordinance, “jumped the gun” by violating the Open Meetings Act (the Act), Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 84-1407 to 84-1414 (Reissue 1999 & Cum.”
Wolf v. Grubbs, 759 N.W.2d 499 (Neb. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “This lawsuit concerns whether certain meetings of the Banner County Board of Commissioners (BOC) and the Banner County Board of Equalization (BOE) were conducted in violation of Nebraska's Open Meetings Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 84-1407 to 84-1414 (Reissue 1999 & Cum.”
Pierce v. Drobny, 777 N.W.2d 322 (Neb. 2010). · cites it 2× “We agree with the district court that the Residents have no remedy under the OMA or any other statutory provisions which they argue might be applicable. Amendment of the complaint would not cure this defect.”
Koch v. Lower Loup NRD, No. A-15-559 (Neb. Ct. App. Dec. 13, 2016). · cites it 2× “INTRODUCTION Mark Allen Koch, pro se, filed a complaint requesting a writ of mandamus to void various meetings of the Lower Loup Natural Resources District Programs and Projects Committee (Committee), and all actions taken therein and therefrom, alleging that the Committee…”
Koch v. City of Sargent, No. A-16-1008 (Neb. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2017). · cites it 2× “He alleged the city council violated the Open Meetings Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 84-1407 to 84-1414 (Reissue 2014) on October 14, 2013.”
Salem Grain Co. v. City of Falls City, 302 Neb. 548 (Neb. 2019). · cites it 2× “CITY OF FALLS CITY injunction blocking the redevelopment project from proceeding. In addition, the amended complaint sought a declaration that any formal action taken by the Authority in violation of NOMA was void.”
Koch v. Lower Loup Nat. Res. Dist., 931 N.W.2d 160 (Neb. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “INTRODUCTION Mark Allen Koch filed a pro se complaint requesting a writ of mandamus to void various meetings of the Lower Loup Natural Resources District Programs/Projects Committee (Committee), and all actions taken therein and therefrom, alleging that the Committee violated…”
Salem Grain Co. v. City of Falls City, 302 Neb. 548 (Neb. 2019). · cites it 2× “CITY OF FALLS CITY injunction blocking the redevelopment project from proceeding. In addition, the amended complaint sought a declaration that any formal action taken by the Authority in violation of NOMA was void.”
Riddle v. Omaha Pub. Schs., No. 8:24-cv-00431 (D. Neb. Nov. 22, 2024). · cites it 2× “1-1) defendant Omaha Public Schools (“OPS”) in state court on October 11, 2024, alleging OPS improperly withheld public records despite “numerous lawful requests from [Riddle] and others” and the Nebraska Attorney General’s Office abdicated “its duty to honestly investigate”…”
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.