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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-704 (2026)

Rule 704. Opinion on ultimate issue

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

Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: State v. Rocha, 890 N.W.2d 178 (Neb. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Rocha, 890 N.W.2d 178 (Neb. 2017). · cites it 2× “704, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-704 (Reissue 2016). See, also, Fed.”
Reiber v. Cnty. of Gage, 303 Neb. 325 (Neb. 2019). · cites it 2× “704, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-704 (Reissue 2016). See, also, Fed.”
State v. Canady, 641 N.W.2d 43 (Neb. 2002). · cites it 2× “” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-704 (Reissue 1995). Voigt’s testimony as to the source of Tiffany’s injuries was admissible.”
State v. Reynolds, 457 N.W.2d 405 (Neb. 1990). · cites it 2× “704, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-704 (Reissue 1989), requires admission of the psychiatric opinion evidence on deliberateness and premeditation in reference to Reynolds’ shooting Dodge.”
Ford v. Est. of Clinton, 656 N.W.2d 606 (Neb. 2003). · cites it 2× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-704 (Reissue 1995). More significantly, we note that whatever objection might have been appropriate to the question posed by the defense, Westfall’s answer to the question did not include an opinion that Clinton’s actions on the night of the accident had…”
Herman v. Lee, 316 N.W.2d 56 (Neb. 1982). · cites it 4× “The latter ground of the objection was probably added by defense counsel from force of habit since Rule 704 of the Rules of Evidence, Neb.Rev. Stat. § 27-704 (Reissue 1979), specifically provides that an opinion is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue for the…”
State v. Rotella, 246 N.W.2d 74 (Neb. 1976). · cites it 2× “Section 27-704, R. R. S. 1943, provides: “Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.”
Schuster v. Baumfalk, 429 N.W.2d 339 (Neb. 1988). · cites it 2× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-704 (Reissue 1985). The admissibility of expert testimony is ordinarily within the discretion of the trial court, and its ruling will be upheld in the absence of an abuse of discretion.”
Coppi v. West Am. Ins., 524 N.W.2d 804 (Neb. 1994). · cites it 2× “704, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-704 (Reissue 1989), provides that “ [testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.”
Shover v. Gen. Motors Corp., 253 N.W.2d 299 (Neb. 1977). · cites it 2× “Section 27-704, R. R. S. 1943, now provides: “Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.”
State v. Hickey, 27 Neb. Ct. App. 516 (Neb. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 4× “The ultimate issue rule was abolished in Nebraska by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-704 (Reissue 2016), which provides that testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.”
In Interest of Kinnebrew, 402 N.W.2d 264 (Neb. 1987). “§ 27-704. The expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give reasons therefor without prior disclosure of the underlying facts or data, unless the judge requires otherwise.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
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.