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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-702 (2026)

Highway, defined

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

Highway has the same meaning as in section 60-624.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1973–2001 · leading case: Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001). · cites it 2× “402 (2000); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-702 (1999); Nev. Rev.”
State v. Hinton, 415 N.W.2d 138 (Neb. 1987). · cites it 2× “§ 86-702 (Reissue 1981). The act permits prosecutors to apply to the district courts for authority to intercept wire or oral communications when such interception "may provide or has provided evidence" of, among other things, "dealing in narcotic or other dangerous drugs.”
State v. Biernacki, 465 N.W.2d 732 (Neb. 1991). “§ 2511 (2)(c); § 86-702(2)(c); State v. Manchester, 220 Neb.”
State Ex Rel. Nebraska State Bar Ass'n v. Schleich, 580 N.W.2d 108 (Neb. 1998). · cites it 2× “The respondent was charged with the criminal offense of conspiracy to interfere with wire communications, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-702 (Reissue 1994). In exchange for his agreement to testify against the investigator, the respondent was accepted into a pretrial…”
Boehner, John A. v. McDermott, James A., 191 F.3d 463 (D.C. Cir. 1999). “§ 45-8-10 (1997); Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 86-702 , 86-707.02 (1995); Nev.”
White v. Longo, 212 N.W.2d 84 (Neb. 1973). · cites it 4× “She was not a person “acting under color of law” with the “prior consent” of one of the parties: to the communication under subsection (2) (b), nor was she a party to the communication, nor did she have the consent of a party to the communication under subsection (2) (c), of…”
State v. Manchester, 367 N.W.2d 733 (Neb. 1985). · cites it 2× “Section 86-702(2)(c) specifically provides that it is not unlawful to intercept a wire or oral communication where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act or…”
Bartnicki v. Vopper, 200 F.3d 109 (3rd Cir. 1999). “§§ 77 -23a-4, 77-23a-11; Va. Code Ann. §§ 19.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-702(2) — 1 case
White v. Longo, 212 N.W.2d 84 (Neb. 1973). “She was not a person “acting under color of law” with the “prior consent” of one of the parties: to the communication under subsection (2) (b), nor was she a party to the communication, nor did she have the consent of a party to the communication under subsection (2) (c), of…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-702(2)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Biernacki, 465 N.W.2d 732 (Neb. 1991). “§ 2511 (2)(c); § 86-702(2)(c); State v. Manchester, 220 Neb.”
State v. Manchester, 367 N.W.2d 733 (Neb. 1985). “Section 86-702(2)(c) specifically provides that it is not unlawful to intercept a wire or oral communication where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act or…”
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.