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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-106 (2026)

Rule 106. Remainder of or related writings or recorded statements; action of judge

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) When part of an act, declaration, conversation or writing is given in evidence by one party, the whole on the same subject may be inquired into by the other. When a letter is read, all other letters on the same subject between the same parties may be given. When a detached act, declaration, conversation or writing is given in evidence, any other act, declaration or writing which is necessary to make it fully understood, or to explain the same, may also be given in evidence.

(2) The judge may in his discretion either require the party thus introducing part of a total communication to introduce at that time such other parts as ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it, or may permit another party to do so at that time.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1978–2022 · leading case: State v. Schrein, 504 N.W.2d 827 (Neb. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Schrein, 504 N.W.2d 827 (Neb. 1993). · cites it 26× “" Under Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-106 (Reissue 1989): (1) When part of an act, declaration, conversation or writing is given in evidence by one party, the whole on the same subject may be inquired into by the other.”
State v. Mrza, 926 N.W.2d 79 (Neb. 2019). · cites it 2× “106, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-106 (Reissue 2016). Id .”
Nickell v. Russell, 614 N.W.2d 349 (Neb. 2000). · cites it 14× “Nickell contends that certain parts of Jacobsen’s testimony were read into evidence by Russell and that other portions of Jacobsen’s testimony, offered by Nickell, should have been admitted under either Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-106 (Reissue 1995) (rule of completeness) or Neb.”
State v. Rocha, 890 N.W.2d 178 (Neb. 2017). · cites it 2× “But the relevance of Rocha’s statements does not automatically render Howton’s statements relevant or admissible.”
State v. Savage, 920 N.W.2d 692 (Neb. 2018). · cites it 3× “See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-106 (Reissue 2016). 29 State v.”
State v. Oldson, 884 N.W.2d 10 (Neb. 2016). · cites it 2× “106, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-106 (Reissue 2008). 55 Concise Oxford American Dictionary 425 (2006).”
State v. Miller, 978 N.W.2d 19 (Neb. 2022). · cites it 3× “During trial, Kliegl testified, without objection, about what Miller said at the accident scene.”
State v. Manchester, 331 N.W.2d 776 (Neb. 1983). · cites it 4× “The defendant argues that the ruling on his objections was an abuse of discretion under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-106 (Reissue 1979). Section 27-106 provides: ‘‘(1) When part of an act, declaration, conversation or writing is given in evidence by one party, the whole on the same…”
State v. Pangborn, 836 N.W.2d 790 (Neb. 2013). · cites it 2× “106(2), Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-106 (2) (Reissue 2008); Neb.”
State v. Thompson, 507 N.W.2d 253 (Neb. 1993). · cites it 2× “106, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-106 (Reissue 1989), although she does not cite that statute.”
Paulsen v. State, 541 N.W.2d 636 (Neb. 1996). · cites it 2× “Paulsen claims that if the State offered one page of both exhibits 3 and 4, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-106 (Reissue 1989) requires that Paulsen be permitted to offer the balance of those two exhibits.”
State v. Coffman, 416 N.W.2d 243 (Neb. 1987). · cites it 2× “) In addition, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-106 (Reissue 1985), formerly Neb.”
Show all 29 citing cases →
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-106(1): 1 case
Nat'l Bank of Com. Trust v. Katleman, 266 N.W.2d 736 (Neb. 1978).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-106(2): 2 cases
State v. Savage, 920 N.W.2d 692 (Neb. 2018). “See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-106 (Reissue 2016). 29 State v.”
State v. Savage, 301 Neb. 873 (Neb. 2018).
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.