For purposes of this article the following definitions are applicable:
(1) Writings and recordings consist of letters, words, or numbers, or their equivalent, set down by handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, magnetic impulse, mechanical or electronic recording, or other form of data compilation;
(2) Photographs include still photographs, X-ray films, video tapes, and motion pictures;
(3) An original of a writing or recording is the writing or recording itself or any counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person executing or issuing it. An original of a photograph includes the negative or any print therefrom. If data are stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or other output readable by sight, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an original; and
(4) A duplicate is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by means of photography, including enlargements and miniatures, or by mechanical or electronic rerecording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduce the original.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases, 1987–2019 · leading case:
State v. Savage, 301 Neb. 873 (Neb. 2018).
State v. Savage, 301 Neb. 873 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 4× “" 25 The State responds that (1) the exhibits were by definition "original[s]" under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-1001 (Reissue 2016) and (2) the reports did not present a danger of admitting a statement out of context, as the redactions sought to include only the relevant information…”
State v. Mohr, 632 N.W.2d 382 (Neb. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 4× “" Neb. Rev.Stat. § 27-1001 (Reissue 1995). Clearly, the price tags affixed to the dresses taken by Mohr constitute original writings.”
State v. Hickey, 27 Neb. Ct. App. 516 (Neb. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-1001 (3) (Reissue 2016), defining an original under the rule, if data is stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or other output readable by sight, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an original.”
State v. Savage, 301 Neb. 873 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 4× “”25 The State responds that (1) the exhibits were by definition “original[s]” under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-1001 (Reissue 2016) and (2) the reports did not present a danger of admitting a statement out of context, as the redactions sought to include only the relevant information…”
State v. Frederiksen, 400 N.W.2d 225 (Neb. 1987).
· cites it 2× “” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-1001 (4) (Reissue 1985) in pertinent part defines “duplicate” as “a counterpart produced .”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-1001(3) — 2 cases
State v. Savage, 301 Neb. 873 (Neb. 2018).
“" 25 The State responds that (1) the exhibits were by definition "original[s]" under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-1001 (Reissue 2016) and (2) the reports did not present a danger of admitting a statement out of context, as the redactions sought to include only the relevant information…”
State v. Savage, 301 Neb. 873 (Neb. 2018).
“”25 The State responds that (1) the exhibits were by definition “original[s]” under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-1001 (Reissue 2016) and (2) the reports did not present a danger of admitting a statement out of context, as the redactions sought to include only the relevant information…”
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.