(1) Any motion, resolution, rule, regulation, ordinance, or formal action of a public body made or taken in violation of the Open Meetings Act shall be declared void by the district court if the suit is commenced within one hundred twenty days of the meeting of the public body at which the alleged violation occurred. Any motion, resolution, rule, regulation, ordinance, or formal action of a public body made or taken in substantial violation of the Open Meetings Act shall be voidable by the district court if the suit is commenced more than one hundred twenty days after but within one year of the meeting of the public body in which the alleged violation occurred. A suit to void any final action shall be commenced within one year of the action.
(2) The Attorney General and the county attorney of the county in which the public body ordinarily meets shall enforce the Open Meetings Act.
(3) Any citizen of this state may commence a suit in the district court of the county in which the public body ordinarily meets or in which the plaintiff resides for the purpose of requiring compliance with or preventing violations of the Open Meetings Act, for the purpose of declaring an action of a public body void, or for the purpose of determining the applicability of the act to discussions or decisions of the public body. It shall not be a defense that the citizen attended the meeting and failed to object at such time. The court may order payment of reasonable attorney's fees and court costs to a successful plaintiff in a suit brought under this section.
(4) Any member of a public body who knowingly violates or conspires to violate or who attends or remains at a meeting knowing that the public body is in violation of any provision of the Open Meetings Act shall be guilty of a Class IV misdemeanor for a first offense and a Class III misdemeanor for a second or subsequent offense.
Notes of Decisions
Salem Grain Co. v. City of Falls City, 302 Neb. 548 (Neb. 2019).
· cites it 5× “Salem Grain argued that both the August 15, 2012, dinner and the November 9 email communications were "meetings" of the Authority under § 84-1409, and it sought to have any action taken on the redevelopment project during these meetings declared void under § 84-1414. After…”
Witt v. Sch. Dist. No. 70, Frontier Cty., 273 N.W.2d 669 (Neb. 1979).
· cites it 8× “This is a declaratory judgment action to declare the termination of plaintiff’s teaching contract void pursuant to section 84-1414, R. R. S. 1943, for the failure of the school board to comply with the Public Meetings Act.”
Wolf v. Grubbs, 759 N.W.2d 499 (Neb. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 15× “§ 84-1414. If the suit is commenced within 120 days of the meeting at which the violation occurred, the improper action is void.”
State Ex Rel. Schuler v. Dunbar, 302 N.W.2d 674 (Neb. 1981).
· cites it 10× “Section 84-1414 provides that any motion, resolution, rule, regulation, ordinance, or formal action taken in violation of certain statutory provisions, including § 84-1413, shall be void.”
Copple v. City of Lincoln, 274 N.W.2d 520 (Neb. 1979).
· cites it 8× “’’ Copple argues that the recess of the county board was a meeting which was in violation of section 84-1411 (1); and thus voided the county board’s subsequent two to one vote to adopt the proposed comprehensive plan, taken when the meeting reconvened, by virtue of section…”
Hansmeyer v. Nebraska Pub. Power Dist., 578 N.W.2d 476 (Neb. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 11× “§ 84-1414. This lawsuit was commenced more than 120 days after the action of September 30 and October 1, 1993, but within 1 year of that date.”
Alderman v. Cnty. of Antelope, 653 N.W.2d 1 (Neb. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 14× “I therefore take the position that under the rule summarized by the above authority, the Board did not have any further authority to entertain the teVeldes' applications for a permit until the district court dismissed the *12 action concerning the Board's order on the first…”
City of Elkhorn v. City of Omaha, 725 N.W.2d 792 (Neb. 2007).
· cites it 3× “Section 84-1414(1) provides: “Any motion, resolution, rule, regulation, ordinance, or formal action of a public body made or taken in violation of the Open Meetings Act shall be declared void by the district court if the suit is commenced within one hundred twenty days of the…”
Alexander v. Sch. Dist. No. 17 of Thurston Cty., 248 N.W.2d 335 (Neb. 1976).
· cites it 4× “Section 84-1414(1), R. S. Supp., 1976, now provides that any formal action of a public body made or taken in violation of any of the provisions of the act shall be declared void by the District Court.”
Stoetzel & Sons, Inc. v. City of Hastings, 658 N.W.2d 636 (Neb. 2003).
· cites it 2× “Section 84-1414(1) requires a court to declare any formal action taken by a public body in violation of the public meetings law void if the suit is commenced within 120 days of the meeting at which the violation occurred.”
Buzek v. Pawnee Cnty., Nebraska, 207 F. Supp. 2d 961 (D. Neb. 2002).
· cites it 10× “To the extent that Buzek has stated a claim for relief that is actionable under section 84-1414, an issue which I purposely do not decide, 5 this court has subject matter jurisdiction over such claim by virtue of 28 U.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-1414(1) — 8 cases
Stoetzel & Sons, Inc. v. City of Hastings, 658 N.W.2d 636 (Neb. 2003).
“Section 84-1414(1) requires a court to declare any formal action taken by a public body in violation of the public meetings law void if the suit is commenced within 120 days of the meeting at which the violation occurred.”
City of Elkhorn v. City of Omaha, 725 N.W.2d 792 (Neb. 2007).
“Section 84-1414(1) provides: “Any motion, resolution, rule, regulation, ordinance, or formal action of a public body made or taken in violation of the Open Meetings Act shall be declared void by the district court if the suit is commenced within one hundred twenty days of the…”
Copple v. City of Lincoln, 274 N.W.2d 520 (Neb. 1979).
“’’ Copple argues that the recess of the county board was a meeting which was in violation of section 84-1411 (1); and thus voided the county board’s subsequent two to one vote to adopt the proposed comprehensive plan, taken when the meeting reconvened, by virtue of section…”
Alexander v. Sch. Dist. No. 17 of Thurston Cty., 248 N.W.2d 335 (Neb. 1976).
“Section 84-1414(1), R. S. Supp., 1976, now provides that any formal action of a public body made or taken in violation of any of the provisions of the act shall be declared void by the District Court.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-1414(2) — 1 case
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-1414(3) — 12 cases
Alderman v. Cnty. of Antelope, 653 N.W.2d 1 (Neb. Ct. App. 2002).
“I therefore take the position that under the rule summarized by the above authority, the Board did not have any further authority to entertain the teVeldes' applications for a permit until the district court dismissed the *12 action concerning the Board's order on the first…”
Alexander v. Sch. Dist. No. 17 of Thurston Cty., 248 N.W.2d 335 (Neb. 1976).
“Section 84-1414(1), R. S. Supp., 1976, now provides that any formal action of a public body made or taken in violation of any of the provisions of the act shall be declared void by the District Court.”
Buzek v. Pawnee Cnty., Nebraska, 207 F. Supp. 2d 961 (D. Neb. 2002).
“To the extent that Buzek has stated a claim for relief that is actionable under section 84-1414, an issue which I purposely do not decide, 5 this court has subject matter jurisdiction over such claim by virtue of 28 U.”
City of Elkhorn v. City of Omaha, 725 N.W.2d 792 (Neb. 2007).
“Section 84-1414(1) provides: “Any motion, resolution, rule, regulation, ordinance, or formal action of a public body made or taken in violation of the Open Meetings Act shall be declared void by the district court if the suit is commenced within one hundred twenty days of the…”
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.