(1) Any person denied any rights granted by sections 84-712 to 84-712.03 may elect to:
(a) File for speedy relief by a writ of mandamus in the district court within whose jurisdiction the state, county, or political subdivision officer who has custody of the public record can be served; or
(b) Petition the Attorney General to review the matter to determine whether a record may be withheld from public inspection or whether the public body that is custodian of such record has otherwise failed to comply with such sections, including whether the fees estimated or charged by the custodian are actual added costs or special service charges as provided under section 84-712. This determination shall be made within fifteen calendar days after the submission of the petition. If the Attorney General determines that the record may not be withheld or that the public body is otherwise not in compliance, the public body shall be ordered to disclose the record immediately or otherwise comply. If the public body continues to withhold the record or remain in noncompliance, the person seeking disclosure or compliance may (i) bring suit in the trial court of general jurisdiction or (ii) demand in writing that the Attorney General bring suit in the name of the state in the trial court of general jurisdiction for the same purpose. If such demand is made, the Attorney General shall bring suit within fifteen calendar days after its receipt. The requester shall have an absolute right to intervene as a full party in the suit at any time.
(2) In any suit filed under this section, the court has jurisdiction to enjoin the public body from withholding records, to order the disclosure, and to grant such other equitable relief as may be proper. The court shall determine the matter de novo and the burden is on the public body to sustain its action. The court may view the records in controversy in camera before reaching a decision, and in the discretion of the court other persons, including the requester, counsel, and necessary expert witnesses, may be permitted to view the records, subject to necessary protective orders.
(3) Proceedings arising under this section shall be advanced on the trial docket and heard and decided by the court as soon as reasonably possible and shall take precedence on the trial docket over all other cases and shall be assigned for hearing, trial, or argument at the earliest practicable date and expedited in every way.
Notes of Decisions
State ex rel. Unger v. State, 878 N.W.2d 540 (Neb. 2016).
· cites it 7× “ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Unger assigns, restated, that the court erred by (1) deter- mining that Irish’s presentence report was not a public record, (2) failing to determine that Fales waived any privilege that attached to the presentence report, and (3) failing to enter a…”
Steckelberg v. Nebraska State Patrol, 885 N.W.2d 44 (Neb. 2016).
· cites it 10× “05(15), concluding that its review of the public records request was de novo under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-712.03 (Reissue 2014).”
Nebraska Journalism Trust v. Dept. of Envt. & Energy, 3 N.W.3d 361 (Neb. 2024).
· cites it 20× “Rev. Stat. § 84-712.03 (Cum. Supp. 2022) regarding the denial or content of a fee estimate has the burden to satisfy three elements: (1) The requesting party is a citizen of the state or other person interested in the examination of the public records, (2) the requesting party -…”
State ex rel. BH Media Grp. v. Frakes, 943 N.W.2d 231 (Neb. 2020).
· cites it 7× “03 (Reissue 2014) has the burden to satisfy three elements: (1) The requesting party is a citizen of the state or other person interested in the examination of the public records, (2) the document sought is a public record as defined by Neb.”
Jacob v. Nebraska Bd. of Parole, 982 N.W.2d 815 (Neb. 2022).
· cites it 7× “The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the respondents, reasoning the record of the review proceedings was part of the individual file deemed by statute to be confidential and, also, that it was part of the examination or investigation by a public body charged…”
State ex rel. Veskrna v. Steel, 894 N.W.2d 788 (Neb. 2017).
· cites it 4× “Veskrna alleged that such records are not protected by any privilege derived from the court’s inherent powers or otherwise shielded by virtue of any other inherent constitutional power of the judicial branch and that 1 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-712.03 (1)(a) (Reissue 2014).”
Evertson v. City of Kimball, 767 N.W.2d 751 (Neb. 2009).
“BURDENS OF PROOF [12, 13] A party seeking a writ of mandamus under § 84-712.03 has the burden to satisfy three elements: (1) The requesting party is a citizen of the state or other person interested in the examination of the public records; (2) the document sought is a public…”
Huff v. Brown, 941 N.W.2d 515 (Neb. 2020).
· cites it 9× “2018), the requesting party’s initial responsibility includes demonstrating that the requested record is a public record that he or she has a clear right to access under the public records statutes and that the public body or custodian against whom mandamus is sought has a clear…”
State ex rel. Adams Cnty. Historical Soc'y v. Kinyoun, 765 N.W.2d 212 (Neb. 2009).
· cites it 5× “ACHS requested that the Nebraska Attorney General's office review the matter pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 84-712.03 (Reissue 2008) and recommend that Kinyoun and DHHS reverse their position.”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-712.03(1): 1 case
Nebraska Journalism Trust v. Dept. of Envt. & Energy, 3 N.W.3d 361 (Neb. 2024).
“Rev. Stat. § 84-712.03 (Cum. Supp. 2022) regarding the denial or content of a fee estimate has the burden to satisfy three elements: (1) The requesting party is a citizen of the state or other person interested in the examination of the public records, (2) the requesting party -…”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-712.03(1)(a): 3 cases
Huff v. Brown, 941 N.W.2d 515 (Neb. 2020).
“2018), the requesting party’s initial responsibility includes demonstrating that the requested record is a public record that he or she has a clear right to access under the public records statutes and that the public body or custodian against whom mandamus is sought has a clear…”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-712.03(2): 6 cases
Steckelberg v. Nebraska State Patrol, 885 N.W.2d 44 (Neb. 2016).
“05(15), concluding that its review of the public records request was de novo under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-712.03 (Reissue 2014).”
State ex rel. Unger v. State, 878 N.W.2d 540 (Neb. 2016).
“ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Unger assigns, restated, that the court erred by (1) deter- mining that Irish’s presentence report was not a public record, (2) failing to determine that Fales waived any privilege that attached to the presentence report, and (3) failing to enter a…”
Nebraska Journalism Trust v. Dept. of Envt. & Energy, 3 N.W.3d 361 (Neb. 2024).
“Rev. Stat. § 84-712.03 (Cum. Supp. 2022) regarding the denial or content of a fee estimate has the burden to satisfy three elements: (1) The requesting party is a citizen of the state or other person interested in the examination of the public records, (2) the requesting party -…”
State ex rel. BH Media Grp. v. Frakes, 943 N.W.2d 231 (Neb. 2020).
“03 (Reissue 2014) has the burden to satisfy three elements: (1) The requesting party is a citizen of the state or other person interested in the examination of the public records, (2) the document sought is a public record as defined by Neb.”
Huff v. Brown, 941 N.W.2d 515 (Neb. 2020).
“2018), the requesting party’s initial responsibility includes demonstrating that the requested record is a public record that he or she has a clear right to access under the public records statutes and that the public body or custodian against whom mandamus is sought has a clear…”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-712.03(3): 1 case
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-712.03(a): 1 case
Jacob v. Nebraska Bd. of Parole, 982 N.W.2d 815 (Neb. 2022).
“The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the respondents, reasoning the record of the review proceedings was part of the individual file deemed by statute to be confidential and, also, that it was part of the examination or investigation by a public body charged…”
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.