Nebraska Revised Statutes
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-301 (2026)
Rule 301. Presumptions in general
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
In all cases not otherwise provided for by statute or by these rules a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of proving that the nonexistence of the presumed fact is more probable than its existence.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2023 · leading case: Hopkins v. Hopkins, 883 N.W.2d 363 (Neb. 2016).
Hopkins v. Hopkins, 883 N.W.2d 363 (Neb. 2016). “301, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-301 (Reissue 2008). See, also, 28 U.”
Dawes v. Wittrock Sandblasting & Painting, Inc., 667 N.W.2d 167 (Neb. 2003). ““In all cases not otherwise provided for by statute or by these rules a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of proving that the nonexistence of the presumed fact is more probable than its existence.”
McGowan v. McGowan, 250 N.W.2d 234 (Neb. 1977). “The argument is grounded on the assumption that the evidence was sufficient to establish a presumption of undue influence, and that under the provisions of section 27-301, R. R. S. 1943, the establishment of the presumption shifted the burden of proof from the contestants to the…”
In re Est. of Clinger, 292 Neb. 237 (Neb. 2015). “301, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-301 (Reissue 2008), a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of proving that the nonexistence of the presumed fact is more probable than its existence.”
State v. Ebert, 303 Neb. 394 (Neb. 2019). “301, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-301 (Reissue 2016). 12 State v.”
Spaghetti Ltd. P'ship v. Wolfe, 647 N.W.2d 615 (Neb. 2002). “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-301 (Reissue 1995) states that “[i]n all cases not *371 otherwise provided for by statute or by these rules a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of proving that the nonexistence of the presumed fact is more probable than…”
Meier v. State, Dept. of Soc. Servs., 417 N.W.2d 771 (Neb. 1988). “07B4 does not come within the ambit of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-301 (Reissue 1985) of the Nebraska Evidence Rules, which provides that, unless within some exception, a presumption imposes upon a party upon whom it is directed the burden of proving that the nonexistence of the presumed…”
Frauendorfer v. Lindsay Mfg. Co., 639 N.W.2d 125 (Neb. 2002). ““In all cases not otherwise provided for by statute or by these rules a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of proving that the nonexistence of the presumed fact is more probable than its existence.”
Mock v. Neumeister, 296 Neb. 376 (Neb. 2017). “We reaf- firmed our holding from 197721 and declared that “the concept referred to as a ‘presumption of undue influence’ in will con- tests is not a true presumption” within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-301 (Reissue 2016).22 We noted that several of our cases after 1977…”
Anderson v. Claussen, 262 N.W.2d 438 (Neb. 1978). “The so-called “presumption of undue influence’’ is not a presumption within the ambit and meaning of section 27-301, R. R. S. 1943. In an undue influence case the burden of proof, or the risk of nonpersuasion on that issue, is on the plaintiff and remains there throughout the…”
Variano v. Dial Corp., 589 N.W.2d 845 (Neb. 1999). “301, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-301 (Reissue 1995). We hold that this rule applies to the rebuttable presumption that an opinion regarding loss of earning capacity expressed by a vocational rehabilitation counselor appointed or selected pursuant to § 48-162.”
State v. Blue Bird, 440 N.W.2d 474 (Neb. 1989). “303 ( Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 27-301 and 27-303 (Reissue 1985)).”
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.