Neb. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 27
Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-1004 (2026)

Rule 1004. Admissibility of other evidence of contents; when

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

The original is not required, and other evidence of the contents of a writing, recording, or photograph is admissible if:

(1) All originals are lost or have been destroyed, unless the proponent lost or destroyed them in bad faith; or

(2) No original can be obtained by any available judicial process or procedure; or

(3) At a time when an original was under the control of the party against whom offered, he was put on notice, by the pleadings or otherwise, that the contents would be a subject of proof at the hearing, and he does not produce the original at the hearing; or

(4) The writing, recording, or photograph is not closely related to a controlling issue.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1977–2007 · leading case: State v. Ellis, 303 N.W.2d 741 (Neb. 1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Ellis, 303 N.W.2d 741 (Neb. 1981). · cites it 4× “Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-1004 (Reissue 1979) provides in part that: "The original is not required, and other evidence of the contents of a writing .”
State v. Obermier, 490 N.W.2d 693 (Neb. 1992). · cites it 4× “Defendant submits that the original or a certified copy of said certificate was required to evidence Officer Cobb's qualifications and that other evidence as to the contents of such certificate (such as Officer Cobb's oral testimony) was inadmissible under Section 27-1004,…”
State v. Kula, 616 N.W.2d 313 (Neb. 2000). · cites it 4× “1004, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-1004 (Reissue 1995), provides that under certain circumstances, the original is not required to be offered and other evidence of the contents of a recording is admissible.”
State v. Mohr, 632 N.W.2d 382 (Neb. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 6× “The prosecutor did not ask "How much did the dresses cost?" or "What were the dresses selling for?" or "Based on your knowledge and experience with Sears retail practices, what were the prices?" but, instead, asked Nobles what the price tags "said.”
Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of United States v. Starr, 489 N.W.2d 857 (Neb. 1992). · cites it 2× “1004, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-1004 (Reissue 1989), which provides: The original is not required, and other evidence of the contents of a writing, recording, or photograph is admissible if: (1) All originals are lost or have been destroyed, unless the proponent lost or destroyed…”
State v. Ward, 510 N.W.2d 320 (Neb. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “Although § 27-803(5) permits “data compilation, in any form,” proper foundation for the use of secondary evidence is required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-1004 (Reissue 1989).”
Richter v. City of Omaha, 729 N.W.2d 67 (Neb. 2007). · cites it 2× “5 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-1004 (Reissue 1995).”
State v. Reed, 423 N.W.2d 777 (Neb. 1988). · cites it 2× “Defendant’s objection for insufficient foundation, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-1004 (Reissue 1985), was sustained.”
In Re Complaint Against Jones, 581 N.W.2d 876 (Neb. 1998). · cites it 2× “Section 27-1002, commonly referred to as the "best evidence" rule or "original document" rule, provides that in order to prove the content of a writing, the original writing is required.”
Commuter Developments & Investments, Inc. v. Gramlich, 279 N.W.2d 394 (Neb. 1979). · cites it 2× “Under section 27-1004, R. R. S. 1943, the burden was on the plaintiff to show that the original of the option was lost or destroyed and the testimony of the plaintiff’s president establishes that the original was looked for but could not be found.”
Montgomery v. Quantum Labs, Inc., 251 N.W.2d 892 (Neb. 1977). · cites it 2× “Section 27-1004, R. R. S. 1943, states, in part: “The original is not required, and other evidence of the contents of a writing, * * * *162 is admissible if: * * * (8) At a time when an original was under the control of the party against whom offered, he was put on notice, by…”
Hoelck v. ICI Americas, Inc., 584 N.W.2d 52 (Neb. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-1004 (Reissue 1995) provides that secondary evidence is admissible to show the contents of a document if the original is unavailable for reasons beyond the control of the proponent of the document.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-1004(1) — 1 case
In Re Complaint Against Jones, 581 N.W.2d 876 (Neb. 1998). “Section 27-1002, commonly referred to as the "best evidence" rule or "original document" rule, provides that in order to prove the content of a writing, the original writing is required.”
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.