(1) The judge may on his own motion or on the motion of any party enter an order to show why expert witnesses should not be appointed, and may request the parties to submit nominations. The judge may appoint any expert witnesses agreed upon by the parties, and may appoint witnesses of his own selection. An expert witness shall not be appointed by the judge unless he consents to act. A witness so appointed shall be informed of his duties by the judge in writing, a copy of which shall be filed with the clerk, or at a conference in which the parties shall have opportunity to participate. A witness so appointed shall advise the parties of his findings, if any; his deposition may be taken by any party; and he may be called to testify by the judge or any party. He shall be subject to cross-examination by each party, including a party calling him as a witness.
(2) Expert witnesses so appointed are entitled to reasonable compensation in whatever sum the judge may allow. The compensation thus fixed is payable from funds which may be provided by law in criminal cases and by the opposing parties in equal portions to the clerk of the court in civil cases at a time fixed by the court and thereafter charged in like manner as other costs.
(3) In the exercise of his discretion, the judge may authorize disclosure to the jury of the fact that the court appointed the expert witness.
(4) Nothing in this rule limits the parties in calling expert witnesses of their own selection.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1981–2024 · leading case:
Konsul v. Asensio, 7 N.W.3d 619 (Neb. 2024).
Konsul v. Asensio, 7 N.W.3d 619 (Neb. 2024).
· cites it 23× “The court appeared to agree with Asensio that he was privileged not to answer certain questions and declined to order Asensio to answer Konsul’s questions regarding the standard of care applicable to the other medical care providers.”
Heistand v. Heistand, 673 N.W.2d 541 (Neb. 2004).
· cites it 5× “706, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-706 (1) (Reissue 1995); (3) failing to *305 sustain objections to hearsay testimony offered by the guardian ad litem; and (4) finding that a material change in circumstances which was in the best interests of Abby existed, warranting a modification of…”
State v. Wood, 966 N.W.2d 825 (Neb. 2021).
· cites it 3× “” 9 The State need not purchase for the indigent defendant all the assistance wealthier counterparts might buy, 10 but the “‘basic tools of an adequate defense or appeal’” must be provided to those defendants who cannot afford to pay for them. 11 In Ake v.”
State v. Quezada, 834 N.W.2d 258 (Neb. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 7× “If proposed expert testimony is fundamentally flawed by the expert’s own admission, it is not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to refuse to appoint the expert under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-706 (Reissue 2008) when there is no showing that this shortcoming in the expert’s…”
In re Interest of Blythman, 302 N.W.2d 666 (Neb. 1981).
· cites it 2× “Section 27-706 permits a judge to enter an order to show cause why expert witnesses should not be appointed.”
Masters v. Masters, No. A-23-111 (Neb. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 2024).
· cites it 16× “” See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-706 (Reissue 2016) (judge-appointed expert witnesses).”
State v. Justin B., No. A-16-334 (Neb. Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2016).
· cites it 6× “Prior to trial, Justin filed a motion to continue trial and motions for an appointment of an expert to make a recommendation regarding Jayden’s best interests under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-706 (Reissue 2008); an examination of Jayden’s mental and physical condition under Neb.”
Fritzen v. Fritzen, No. A-19-416, A-19-417 (Neb. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2020).
· cites it 2× “The district court ordered an “expert witness should be appointed” pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-706 (Reissue 2016) (judge may on own motion appoint expert witness), specifically an “accountant” who could “provide an accounting” to the court.”
Wolfe v. Wolfe, No. A-14-335 (Neb. Ct. App. Mar. 3, 2015).
· cites it 2× “, a certified child psychologist, as an expert pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-706 (1) (Reissue 2008).”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-706(1): 4 cases
Heistand v. Heistand, 673 N.W.2d 541 (Neb. 2004).
“706, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-706 (1) (Reissue 1995); (3) failing to *305 sustain objections to hearsay testimony offered by the guardian ad litem; and (4) finding that a material change in circumstances which was in the best interests of Abby existed, warranting a modification of…”
Konsul v. Asensio, 7 N.W.3d 619 (Neb. 2024).
“The court appeared to agree with Asensio that he was privileged not to answer certain questions and declined to order Asensio to answer Konsul’s questions regarding the standard of care applicable to the other medical care providers.”
State v. Justin B., No. A-16-334 (Neb. Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2016).
“Prior to trial, Justin filed a motion to continue trial and motions for an appointment of an expert to make a recommendation regarding Jayden’s best interests under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-706 (Reissue 2008); an examination of Jayden’s mental and physical condition under Neb.”
Masters v. Masters, No. A-23-111 (Neb. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 2024).
“” See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-706 (Reissue 2016) (judge-appointed expert witnesses).”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-706(2): 1 case
State v. Wood, 966 N.W.2d 825 (Neb. 2021).
“” 9 The State need not purchase for the indigent defendant all the assistance wealthier counterparts might buy, 10 but the “‘basic tools of an adequate defense or appeal’” must be provided to those defendants who cannot afford to pay for them. 11 In Ake v.”
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.