Neb. Rev. Stat. § 18-2101
This is the official text of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 18-2101, part of Nebraska’s Rev. Stat — part of the compiled statutory law of Nebraska, published by the state as "Rev. Stat." Browse the sections below, each linked to its official government source.
Not legal advice. This page reproduces the official text of a government statute for reference only. Laws change, and how a statute applies depends on your specific facts. For advice about your situation, consult a licensed attorney in your state.
18-2101
Official statutory text
Sections 18-2101 to 18-2158 shall be known and may be cited as the Community Development Law.
Laws 1951, c. 224, § 1, p. 797;
R.R.S.1943, § 14-1601;
Laws 1957, c. 52, § 1, p. 247;
R.R.S.1943, § 19-2601;
Laws 1973, LB 299, § 1;
Laws 1997, LB 875, § 2;
Laws 2007, LB562, § 1;
Laws 2013, LB66, § 1;
Laws 2018, LB496, § 1;
Laws 2018, LB874, § 4;
Laws 2019, LB86, § 1;
Laws 2020, LB1021, § 1;
Laws 2023, LB531, § 10;
Laws 2025, LB288, § 4.
In considering a challenge to actions taken by a community redevelopment authority pursuant to the Community Development Law, a district court may disturb the decision of the community redevelopment authority only if it determines that the decision was illegal or is not supported by the evidence and is thus arbitrary, unreasonable, or clearly wrong. Under the Community Development Law, land cannot be added to an existing community redevelopment area unless (1) the additional land is declared blighted or substandard within the meaning of the Community Development Law or (2) the additional land is reasonably necessary to accomplish the implementation of the existing redevelopment plan. Fitzke v. City of Hastings, 255 Neb. 46, 582 N.W.2d 301 (1998).
In considering a challenge to actions taken by a community redevelopment authority pursuant to the Community Development Law, a district court may disturb the decision of the community redevelopment authority only if it determines that the decision was illegal or is not supported by the evidence and is thus arbitrary, unreasonable, or clearly wrong. Under the Community Development Law, land cannot be added to an existing community redevelopment area unless (1) the additional land is declared blighted or substandard within the meaning of the Community Development Law or (2) the additional land is reasonably necessary to accomplish the implementation of the existing redevelopment plan. Fitzke v. City of Hastings, 255 Neb. 46, 582 N.W.2d 301 (1998).
Laws 1951, c. 224, § 1, p. 797;
R.R.S.1943, § 14-1601;
Laws 1957, c. 52, § 1, p. 247;
R.R.S.1943, § 19-2601;
Laws 1973, LB 299, § 1;
Laws 1997, LB 875, § 2;
Laws 2007, LB562, § 1;
Laws 2013, LB66, § 1;
Laws 2018, LB496, § 1;
Laws 2018, LB874, § 4;
Laws 2019, LB86, § 1;
Laws 2020, LB1021, § 1;
Laws 2023, LB531, § 10;
Laws 2025, LB288, § 4.
In considering a challenge to actions taken by a community redevelopment authority pursuant to the Community Development Law, a district court may disturb the decision of the community redevelopment authority only if it determines that the decision was illegal or is not supported by the evidence and is thus arbitrary, unreasonable, or clearly wrong. Under the Community Development Law, land cannot be added to an existing community redevelopment area unless (1) the additional land is declared blighted or substandard within the meaning of the Community Development Law or (2) the additional land is reasonably necessary to accomplish the implementation of the existing redevelopment plan. Fitzke v. City of Hastings, 255 Neb. 46, 582 N.W.2d 301 (1998).
In considering a challenge to actions taken by a community redevelopment authority pursuant to the Community Development Law, a district court may disturb the decision of the community redevelopment authority only if it determines that the decision was illegal or is not supported by the evidence and is thus arbitrary, unreasonable, or clearly wrong. Under the Community Development Law, land cannot be added to an existing community redevelopment area unless (1) the additional land is declared blighted or substandard within the meaning of the Community Development Law or (2) the additional land is reasonably necessary to accomplish the implementation of the existing redevelopment plan. Fitzke v. City of Hastings, 255 Neb. 46, 582 N.W.2d 301 (1998).
Status: in_force · Read it on the official government site
Need a lawyer in Nebraska?
Find a Nebraska lawyer
About this page: Statute text is reproduced from official government publishers via the
Open US Law dataset
(Vaquill AI, snapshot v2026.08, CC BY 4.0). Primary legislative text like this is public domain under the government-edicts doctrine
(Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). We link every section back to its official source so you can verify it independently.