Nebraska Supreme Court Limits County Authority Over PSC-Funded Broadband Expansion

Pinpoint Commc’ns v. Gage Cnty., 321 Neb. 764 (2026)

The Nebraska Public Service Commission (“PSC”) awarded funding to Pinpoint Communications, Inc. (“Pinpoint”) under the Nebraska Broadband Bridge Act to build a broadband network in Gage County.[1] Pinpoint then applied for a permit from the Gage County Board of Supervisors (the “County Board”) to install facilities within county right-of-way.

The County Board denied the application because Pinpoint’s proposed service area overlapped with Nextlink Internet’s (“Nextlink”) service area. The PSC had also funded Nextlink for broadband expansion. The County Board objected to using public funds to support overlapping broadband projects.

Following the denial, Pinpoint filed a petition in error in the district court. The district court sustained the petition and found the County Board lacked authority to nullify the state grant. The County Board appealed.

First, the Nebraska Supreme Court considered whether a petition in error was the proper method to challenge the County Board’s decision. A petition in error is appropriate when a board exercises judicial functions.[2] A board exercises judicial functions when it decides disputed adjudicative facts or when a statute requires it to act in a judicial manner.[3]

The County Board argued it exercised policy discretion rather than judicial functions when it denied Pinpoint’s application. The court rejected this argument. 

Telecommunications companies may construct telecommunications lines along county rights-of-way if the lines do not interfere with public use and maintain at least 18 feet of clearance above highway crossings.[4] The court found the County Board exercised a judicial function when it determined whether Pinpoint satisfied those statutory requirements. The court thus held Pinpoint properly challenged the decision through a petition in error.

Second, the court considered whether the County Board exceeded its authority in denying Pinpoint’s permit application. The County Board acknowledged that it denied the application to prevent “the tax-subsidized overbuilding of broadband access.” The County Board did not deny the permit because of land use or road interference concerns.

The court ruled the County Board lacked authority to deny the permit. The Legislature gave PSC authority to award funding, and the County Board lacked authority to nullify PSC’s decision. The court noted that denying the permit would not save any public funds. The court affirmed the district court’s decision sustaining Pinpoint’s petition in error.

Attorneys at Baird Holm specialize in various subject matter areas including infrastructure development, permitting, land use and other regulatory matters. Please contact us with any questions.

Hannes D. Zetzsche
Sydney M. Mack, Summer Associate