Source: https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=17-614
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 06:25:40+00:00

Document:
(1) All ordinances and resolutions or orders for the appropriation or payment of money shall require for their passage or adoption the concurrence of a majority of all members elected to the city council in a city of the second class or village board of trustees. The mayor of a city of the second class may vote when his or her vote would provide the additional vote required to attain the number of votes equal to a majority of the number of members elected to the city council, and the mayor shall, for the purpose of such vote, be deemed to be a member of the city council. Ordinances of a general or permanent nature shall be read by title on three different days unless three-fourths of the city council or village board of trustees vote to suspend this requirement, except that such requirement shall not be suspended for any ordinance for the annexation of territory or the redrawing of boundaries for city council or village board of trustees election districts or wards. In case such requirement is suspended, the ordinances shall be read by title and then moved for final passage. Three-fourths of the city council or village board of trustees may require a reading of any such ordinance in full before enactment under either procedure set out in this section.
Laws 2018, LB865, § 4.
A city of the second class can repeal an ordinance only by enacting a later ordinance which contains the entire text, as amended, of the earlier ordinance or section being amended, along with a statement that the earlier version is repealed. Hammond v. City of Broken Bow, 239 Neb. 437, 476 N.W.2d 822 (1991).
Title need not be an index or abstract of the powers intended to be given. Gembler v. City of Seward, 136 Neb. 196, 285 N.W. 542 (1939), modified on rehearing 136 Neb. 916, 288 N.W. 545 (1939).
Where the minutes show ordinance was adopted, the presumption is that the ordinance was read as required. Provision that ordinance shall contain no subject, not clearly expressed in its title, is mandatory. Village of Deshler v. Southern Nebraska Power Co., 133 Neb. 778, 277 N.W. 77 (1938).
Where ordinance was passed and the vote recorded, it will be presumed it was duly read before passage, since this section does not affirmatively declare that the reading thereof on three different days must be recorded. Hull v. City of Humboldt, 107 Neb. 326, 186 N.W. 78 (1921).
Where title provides "*** and ordinance authorizing and granting the right *** to construct and maintain an electric light power or gas plant or both", such title is broad enough to grant the right to erect poles and wires in the city streets and to operate, extend, and repair them. City of York v. Iowa-Nebraska Light & Power Co., 109 F.2d 683 (8th Cir. 1940).
Term "three-fourths majority" means three-fourths of quorum present and acting. City of North Platte v. North Platte Water-Works Co., 56 Neb. 403, 76 N.W. 906 (1898).
Council of city of second class may present and pass an ordinance of general nature on the same day if the rules are suspended by three-fourths vote of the council. Brown v. Lutz, 36 Neb. 527, 54 N.W. 860 (1893).
Final passage of ordinance requires favorable vote of members of city council, exclusive of mayor. State ex rel. Grosshans v. Gray, 23 Neb. 365, 36 N.W. 577 (1888).
Publication of a resolution is not required. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. v. City of Randolph, 163 Neb. 687, 81 N.W.2d 159 (1957).
Section as complied with in passage of paving ordinance. Freeman v. City of Neligh, 155 Neb. 651, 53 N.W.2d 67 (1952).
Village ordinance, requiring construction of temporary sidewalk, on ungraded and unimproved street, is not ordinance of general or permanent nature and this section does not apply. Whitla v. Connor, 114 Neb. 526, 208 N.W. 670 (1926); Gibson v. Troupe, 96 Neb. 770, 148 N.W. 944 (1914).
This section does not permit issuance of warrant where only two members of a four-member council vote in favor thereof, although only one member votes against issuance. State ex rel. Katz-Craig Contracting Co. v. Darner, 95 Neb. 39, 144 N.W. 1048 (1914).
Ordinance, whose main object is to license and regulate, is not wholly void because a provision imposes an occupation tax not clearly expressed in the title. Morgan v. State, 64 Neb. 369, 90 N.W. 108 (1902).

References: § 4
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.