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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-705 (2026)

Right-of-way; condemnation; procedure

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

Any telecommunications company may enter upon private lands to survey the lands for the purpose of obtaining a right-of-way. Every owner of an interest in private lands to be occupied by any telecommunications lines shall be compensated for any right-of-way appropriated pursuant to sections 86-701 to 86-707. The procedure to condemn property shall be exercised in the manner set forth in sections 76-704 to 76-724.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases, 1973–2009 · leading case: State v. Brennen, 356 N.W.2d 861 (Neb. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Brennen, 356 N.W.2d 861 (Neb. 1984). · cites it 26× “Two provisions of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 86-705 (Reissue 1981) bear upon the termination of interceptions.”
State v. Hinton, 415 N.W.2d 138 (Neb. 1987). · cites it 20× “These definitions are virtually identical to those found in title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.”
State v. Myers, 603 N.W.2d 390 (Neb. 1999). · cites it 16× “Section 86-705 provides: (1) ... Each application shall include the following information: (a) The identity of the applicant; (b) A full and complete statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify his or her belief that an order should be…”
State v. Whitmore, 340 N.W.2d 134 (Neb. 1983). · cites it 13× “” In its order suppressing the evidence the trial court found the wiretap orders to be facially insufficient because the Douglas County attorney failed to provide, as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-705 (6) (Reissue 1981), that the authorization to intercept “must terminate…”
State v. Golter, 342 N.W.2d 650 (Neb. 1983). · cites it 22× “In view of the admission of evidence at trial, that is, evidence obtained in violation of § 86-705, the conviction of Paul Karl Golter is set aside, the judgment of the district court in these proceedings is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the district court for a new…”
State v. Anderson, 296 N.W.2d 440 (Neb. 1980). · cites it 7× “The appellants maintain that, under the provisions of Neb. Rev. Stat. §86-705 (12) (Reissue 1976), the State was required to appeal to the entire court and we should now remand the matter for a full court hearing.”
State v. Kolosseus, 253 N.W.2d 157 (Neb. 1977). · cites it 7× “, section 2518 , and section 86-705, R. R. S. 1943, are, in all substantive ways and in wording, virtually identical.”
State v. Lozano, 311 N.W.2d 529 (Neb. 1981). · cites it 3× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-705 (Reissue 1976) provides in part: “Each application for an order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire or oral communication .”
State v. Whitmore, 378 N.W.2d 150 (Neb. 1985). · cites it 4× “In Goiter this court expounded at length on the necessity requirement embodied in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-705 (l)(c) and (3)(c) (Reissue 1981).”
State v. Hinchion, 299 N.W.2d 748 (Neb. 1980). · cites it 6× “They were unaffected by that decision and are, therefore, disposed of under Neb. Rev. Stat. §86-705 (12) (Reissue 1976).”
State v. White, 371 N.W.2d 262 (Neb. 1985). · cites it 2× “The three errors alleged by White are: (1) The district court committed error by admitting wiretap evidence when the order authorizing the electronic surveillance did not contain a provision that the authorization to intercept must terminate upon the attainment of the authorized…”
United States v. Van Horn, 579 F. Supp. 804 (D. Neb. 1984). · cites it 3× “§ 86-705(3), a Judge may issue an order if on the basis of facts submitted by the applicant, a determination is made that there is (1) probable cause for belief that an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a particular offense enumerated in the statute;…”
Show all 27 citing cases →
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-705(1) — 3 cases
State v. Hinton, 415 N.W.2d 138 (Neb. 1987). “These definitions are virtually identical to those found in title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.”
State v. Golter, 342 N.W.2d 650 (Neb. 1983). “In view of the admission of evidence at trial, that is, evidence obtained in violation of § 86-705, the conviction of Paul Karl Golter is set aside, the judgment of the district court in these proceedings is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the district court for a new…”
State v. Kohout, 251 N.W.2d 723 (Neb. 1977).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-705(1)(c) — 4 cases
State v. Golter, 342 N.W.2d 650 (Neb. 1983). “In view of the admission of evidence at trial, that is, evidence obtained in violation of § 86-705, the conviction of Paul Karl Golter is set aside, the judgment of the district court in these proceedings is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the district court for a new…”
State v. Whitmore, 378 N.W.2d 150 (Neb. 1985). “In Goiter this court expounded at length on the necessity requirement embodied in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-705 (l)(c) and (3)(c) (Reissue 1981).”
State v. Kolosseus, 253 N.W.2d 157 (Neb. 1977). “, section 2518 , and section 86-705, R. R. S. 1943, are, in all substantive ways and in wording, virtually identical.”
State v. Lane, 317 N.W.2d 750 (Neb. 1982).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-705(1)(e) — 1 case
State v. Kohout, 251 N.W.2d 723 (Neb. 1977).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-705(11) — 2 cases
State v. Golter, 342 N.W.2d 650 (Neb. 1983). “In view of the admission of evidence at trial, that is, evidence obtained in violation of § 86-705, the conviction of Paul Karl Golter is set aside, the judgment of the district court in these proceedings is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the district court for a new…”
State v. Aulrich, 308 N.W.2d 739 (Neb. 1981).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-705(12) — 2 cases
State v. Anderson, 296 N.W.2d 440 (Neb. 1980). “The appellants maintain that, under the provisions of Neb. Rev. Stat. §86-705 (12) (Reissue 1976), the State was required to appeal to the entire court and we should now remand the matter for a full court hearing.”
State v. Hinchion, 299 N.W.2d 748 (Neb. 1980). “They were unaffected by that decision and are, therefore, disposed of under Neb. Rev. Stat. §86-705 (12) (Reissue 1976).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-705(3) — 6 cases
State v. Myers, 603 N.W.2d 390 (Neb. 1999). “Section 86-705 provides: (1) ... Each application shall include the following information: (a) The identity of the applicant; (b) A full and complete statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify his or her belief that an order should be…”
United States v. Van Horn, 579 F. Supp. 804 (D. Neb. 1984). “§ 86-705(3), a Judge may issue an order if on the basis of facts submitted by the applicant, a determination is made that there is (1) probable cause for belief that an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a particular offense enumerated in the statute;…”
State v. Holmes, 302 N.W.2d 382 (Neb. 1981).
State v. Golter, 342 N.W.2d 650 (Neb. 1983). “In view of the admission of evidence at trial, that is, evidence obtained in violation of § 86-705, the conviction of Paul Karl Golter is set aside, the judgment of the district court in these proceedings is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the district court for a new…”
State v. Lane, 317 N.W.2d 750 (Neb. 1982).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-705(3)(a) — 1 case
State v. Myers, 603 N.W.2d 390 (Neb. 1999). “Section 86-705 provides: (1) ... Each application shall include the following information: (a) The identity of the applicant; (b) A full and complete statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify his or her belief that an order should be…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-705(3)(c) — 3 cases
State v. Myers, 603 N.W.2d 390 (Neb. 1999). “Section 86-705 provides: (1) ... Each application shall include the following information: (a) The identity of the applicant; (b) A full and complete statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify his or her belief that an order should be…”
State v. Golter, 342 N.W.2d 650 (Neb. 1983). “In view of the admission of evidence at trial, that is, evidence obtained in violation of § 86-705, the conviction of Paul Karl Golter is set aside, the judgment of the district court in these proceedings is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the district court for a new…”
State v. Lane, 317 N.W.2d 750 (Neb. 1982).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-705(4) — 2 cases
State v. Brennen, 356 N.W.2d 861 (Neb. 1984). “Two provisions of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 86-705 (Reissue 1981) bear upon the termination of interceptions.”
State v. Whitmore, 340 N.W.2d 134 (Neb. 1983). “” In its order suppressing the evidence the trial court found the wiretap orders to be facially insufficient because the Douglas County attorney failed to provide, as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-705 (6) (Reissue 1981), that the authorization to intercept “must terminate…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-705(6) — 6 cases
State v. Brennen, 356 N.W.2d 861 (Neb. 1984). “Two provisions of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 86-705 (Reissue 1981) bear upon the termination of interceptions.”
State v. Whitmore, 340 N.W.2d 134 (Neb. 1983). “” In its order suppressing the evidence the trial court found the wiretap orders to be facially insufficient because the Douglas County attorney failed to provide, as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-705 (6) (Reissue 1981), that the authorization to intercept “must terminate…”
State v. Brennen, 336 N.W.2d 79 (Neb. 1983).
United States v. Van Horn, 579 F. Supp. 804 (D. Neb. 1984). “§ 86-705(3), a Judge may issue an order if on the basis of facts submitted by the applicant, a determination is made that there is (1) probable cause for belief that an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a particular offense enumerated in the statute;…”
State v. Kohout, 251 N.W.2d 723 (Neb. 1977).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-705(7) — 1 case
State v. Hinton, 415 N.W.2d 138 (Neb. 1987). “These definitions are virtually identical to those found in title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-705(8) — 1 case
United States v. Feiste, 792 F. Supp. 1153 (D. Neb. 1991).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-705(9) — 3 cases
State v. Hinton, 415 N.W.2d 138 (Neb. 1987). “These definitions are virtually identical to those found in title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.”
State v. Kolosseus, 253 N.W.2d 157 (Neb. 1977). “, section 2518 , and section 86-705, R. R. S. 1943, are, in all substantive ways and in wording, virtually identical.”
State v. Kohout, 251 N.W.2d 723 (Neb. 1977).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-705(c) — 3 cases
State v. Lozano, 311 N.W.2d 529 (Neb. 1981). “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-705 (Reissue 1976) provides in part: “Each application for an order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire or oral communication .”
State v. Aulrich, 308 N.W.2d 739 (Neb. 1981).
United States v. Howell, 581 F. Supp. 65 (D. Neb. 1983).
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.