Neb. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 86
Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-701 (2026)

Telecommunications rights-of-way; definitions, where found

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

For purposes of sections 86-701 to 86-710, the definitions found in sections 86-702 and 86-703 apply.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases, 1973–2007 · leading case: State v. Hinton, 415 N.W.2d 138 (Neb. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Hinton, 415 N.W.2d 138 (Neb. 1987). · cites it 12× “ANALYSIS Intercepted Communications Statutes We begin our analysis of the law applied to Hinton's assignments of error by reviewing the relevant provisions of Nebraska's intercepted communications statutes, Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 86-701 through 86-712 (Reissue 1981 & Cum.”
State v. Strohl, 587 N.W.2d 675 (Neb. 1999). · cites it 7× “Strohl argued the communications were intercepted in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-701 et seq. (Reissue 1994 & Cum.”
State v. Myers, 603 N.W.2d 390 (Neb. 1999). · cites it 6× “Constitution; article I, § VII, of the Nebraska Constitution; Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 86-701 to 86-712 (Reissue 1994 & Supp.”
State v. Brennen, 356 N.W.2d 861 (Neb. 1984). · cites it 4× “While Nebraska's wiretap law, Neb.Rev. Stat. §§ 86-701 et seq. (Reissue 1981), may impose a greater restriction on electronic surveillance and may afford greater protection against unreasonable searches and seizures than is provided by the Constitutions, the wiretap law of…”
State v. Myers, 603 N.W.2d 378 (Neb. 1999). · cites it 2× “Constitution; article I, § 7, of the Nebraska Constitution; Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 86-701 to 86-712 (Reissue 1994 & Supp.”
State v. Golter, 342 N.W.2d 650 (Neb. 1983). · cites it 6× “2d 157 (1977), we set out the background of Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 86-701 et seq. (Reissue 1981), the Nebraska "wiretap" law, and its federal counterpart, 18 U.”
Whipps Land & Cattle Co. v. Level 3 Commc'ns, LLC, 658 N.W.2d 258 (Neb. 2003). · cites it 2× “See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-701 et seq. (Cum. Supp.”
United States v. Van Horn, 579 F. Supp. 804 (D. Neb. 1984). · cites it 6× “§§ 86-701 through 86-707 (Reissue 1976) by (a) failing to terminate the interceptions after drug-related calls were first detected; (b) failing to take steps to minimize the incidents of electronic surveillance; and (c) failing to adequately utilize traditional methods of…”
State v. Kolosseus, 253 N.W.2d 157 (Neb. 1977). · cites it 3× “The evidence on which the convictions were founded was obtained by means of a wiretap interception of oral communications over the defendant’s telephone lines, such wiretap having been authorized by an order of the District Court for Douglas County, Nebraska, pursuant to an…”
State v. Biernacki, 465 N.W.2d 732 (Neb. 1991). · cites it 2× “(1988), Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 86-701 through 86-707 (Reissue 1987), and a Wyoming statute, Wyo.”
State v. Whitmore, 340 N.W.2d 134 (Neb. 1983). · cites it 2× “§2518 (5) (1970), similar to our § 86-705(6), ‘‘as requiring automatic termination upon attainment of the objective of the authorization irrespective of whether a statement to this effect has been included [in the order] by the authorizing judge.”
State v. Mullens, 650 S.E.2d 169 (W. Va. 2007). “(2002); Neb.Rev. Stat. § 86-701, et seq. (1999); Nev.”
Show all 24 citing cases →
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-701(12) — 2 cases
State v. Strohl, 587 N.W.2d 675 (Neb. 1999). “Strohl argued the communications were intercepted in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-701 et seq. (Reissue 1994 & Cum.”
State v. Weikle, 474 N.W.2d 486 (Neb. 1991).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-701(2) — 1 case
State v. Manchester, 367 N.W.2d 733 (Neb. 1985).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-701(4) — 1 case
State v. Hinton, 415 N.W.2d 138 (Neb. 1987). “ANALYSIS Intercepted Communications Statutes We begin our analysis of the law applied to Hinton's assignments of error by reviewing the relevant provisions of Nebraska's intercepted communications statutes, Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 86-701 through 86-712 (Reissue 1981 & Cum.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-701(5) — 1 case
United States v. Van Horn, 579 F. Supp. 804 (D. Neb. 1984). “§§ 86-701 through 86-707 (Reissue 1976) by (a) failing to terminate the interceptions after drug-related calls were first detected; (b) failing to take steps to minimize the incidents of electronic surveillance; and (c) failing to adequately utilize traditional methods of…”
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.