Nebraska Revised Statutes
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-1408 (2026)
Declaration of intent; meetings open to public
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
It is hereby declared to be the policy of this state that the formation of public policy is public business and may not be conducted in secret.
Every meeting of a public body shall be open to the public in order that citizens may exercise their democratic privilege of attending and speaking at meetings of public bodies, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of Nebraska, federal statutes, and the Open Meetings Act.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34
cases, 1979–2019 · leading case: Stoetzel & Sons, Inc. v. City of Hastings, 658 N.W.2d 636 (Neb. 2003).
Stoetzel & Sons, Inc. v. City of Hastings, 658 N.W.2d 636 (Neb. 2003). “See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-1408 et seq. (Reissue 1999 & Cum.”
Wasikowski v. Nebraska Quality Jobs Bd., 648 N.W.2d 756 (Neb. 2002). “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-1408 (Reissue 1999).”
City of Elkhorn v. City of Omaha, 725 N.W.2d 792 (Neb. 2007). “Section 84-1408 provides that “[e]very meeting of a public body shall be open to the public .”
Marks v. Jud. Nominating Comm'n, 461 N.W.2d 551 (Neb. 1990). “This is a suit for a declaratory judgment under the Nebraska *430 public meetings law, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 84-1408 to 84-1414 (Reissue 1987).”
Dossett v. First State Bank, Loomis, 627 N.W.2d 131 (Neb. 2001). “” For the first time, on appeal, she argues in her brief that the termination of her employment violates the public policy embodied in Nebraska’s public meetings law, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-1408 (Reissue 1999).”
Otey v. State, 485 N.W.2d 153 (Neb. 1992). “Otey claims the district court erred in overruling his motion for leave to file a second amended petition, which would have added a fourth cause of *835 action alleging that the June 6, 1991, meeting of the Board of Pardons violated Nebraska’s public meetings law, Neb. Rev.…”
Fisher v. Hous. Auth. of City of Omaha, 334 N.W.2d 636 (Neb. 1983). “§84-917 (Reissue 1981), that he was improperly terminated; that he was damaged by the above-cited press release; that his rights were somehow prejudiced by the board and executive director having counsel from the same firm; that the board failed to operate under its own adopted…”
State Ex Rel. Schuler v. Dunbar, 302 N.W.2d 674 (Neb. 1981). “If, in fact, the majority opinion holds, as I believe it does, that the provisions of the open meetings law (Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 84-1408 to 84-1414 (Reissue 1976)) preclude a public body from correcting its own records, nunc pro tunc, to reflect what in fact took place, I must…”
State Ex Rel. Upper Repub. Nat. Resources Dist. v. Honorable Dist. Judges, 728 N.W.2d 275 (Neb. 2007). “We therefore conclude that a peremptory writ of mandamus shall issue, directing the district court to vacate its orders compelling discovery and to conduct an in camera review in order to evaluate whether the contested evidence is protected by the attorney-client privilege.”
McQuinn v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 66, 612 N.W.2d 198 (Neb. 2000). “§ 79-834 (Reissue 1996) and Nebraska’s public meetings laws, codified at Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 84-1408 through 84-1414 (Reissue 1994 & Cum.”
Pokorny v. City of Schuyler, 275 N.W.2d 281 (Neb. 1979). “The petition alleged that the City had violated the provisions of the open meeting law, sections 84-1408 to 84-1414, R. R. S. 1943.”
Steenblock v. Elkhorn Twp. Bd., 515 N.W.2d 128 (Neb. 1994). “Steenblock alleged that the Board and its members violated the provisions of the Nebraska public meetings laws, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 84-1408 to 84-1414 (Reissue 1987 & Cum.”
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.