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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-406 (2026)

Rule 406. Habit; routine practice; admissibility; method of proof

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

(1) Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice.

(2) Habit or routine practice may be proved by testimony in the form of an opinion or by specific instances of conduct sufficient in number to warrant a finding that the habit existed or that the practice was routine.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2000–2021 · leading case: Borley Storage & Transfer Co. v. Whitted, 710 N.W.2d 71 (Neb. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Borley Storage & Transfer Co. v. Whitted, 710 N.W.2d 71 (Neb. 2006). · cites it 3× “tinuation statement did not relieve the Bauders of their obligation on the promissory note; (6) overruling its foundational objection to Whitted’s testimony regarding his habit or routine with respect to representing sellers of businesses; (7) receiving Dennis Bauder’s personal…”
State v. Edwards, 767 N.W.2d 784 (Neb. 2009). · cites it 2× “406(1), Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-406 (1) (Reissue 2008).”
Hoffart v. Hodge, 609 N.W.2d 397 (Neb. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 7× “§ 27-406 (Reissue 1995), which provides: (1) Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a…”
Burchett v. Commonwealth, 98 S.W.3d 492 (Ky. 2003). · cites it 2× “406; Nebraska: Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-406; Nevada: Nev.Rev.Stat.”
Schuemann v. Menard, Inc., 27 Neb. Ct. App. 977 (Neb. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 10× “A trial court’s decision to admit habit evidence based on opinion under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-406 (Reissue 2016) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”
Loftus v. Loftus (In Re Est.), 26 Neb. Ct. App. 439 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the…”
State v. Kilgore, 30 Neb. Ct. App. 273 (Neb. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “or habit [regarding Kilgore’s prior act of using a belt for disciplinary purposes] when the State failed to properly file a motion in limine seek- ing to introduce such evidence,” (3) the county court erred in “admitting [the same] evidence of habit under Neb. Rev. Stat. §…”
In re Est. of Loftus, 26 Neb. Ct. App. 439 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-406 (1) (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Podrazo (Neb. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 5× “(d) Motion to Offer Habit Evidence After trial began, Podrazo moved to offer evidence under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-406 (Reissue 2008) of A.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-406(1) — 1 case
Schuemann v. Menard, Inc., 27 Neb. Ct. App. 977 (Neb. Ct. App. 2020). “A trial court’s decision to admit habit evidence based on opinion under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-406 (Reissue 2016) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-406(2) — 1 case
Schuemann v. Menard, Inc., 27 Neb. Ct. App. 977 (Neb. Ct. App. 2020). “A trial court’s decision to admit habit evidence based on opinion under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-406 (Reissue 2016) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”
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.