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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-802 (2026)

Rule 802. Hearsay rule

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

Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by these rules, by other rules adopted by the statutes of the State of Nebraska, or by the discovery rules of the Supreme Court.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 88 cases (25 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: State v. Hibler, 302 Neb. 325 (Neb. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Hibler, 302 Neb. 325 (Neb. 2019). · cites it 6× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-802 (Reissue 2016). [18,19] Hibler argues that the statements were not offered for the truth of the matters asserted but instead were prop- erly proffered to attack the credibility of A.”
Transcanada Keystone Pipeline, LP v. Dunavan (In Re Application No. Op-0003), 303 Neb. 872 (Neb. 2019). · cites it 3× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-802 (Reissue 2016). See State ex rel.”
Walton v. PATIL, 783 N.W.2d 438 (Neb. 2010). · cites it 10× “In so concluding, we reasoned that the court had no power, pursuant to Neb.Rev. Stat. §§ 27-802 and 25-1273.01 (Reissue 1989), to create in the Nebraska discovery rules an independent exception to the hearsay prohibition of § 27-802.”
State v. Sheets, 618 N.W.2d 117 (Neb. 2000). · cites it 8× “ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Rephrased, Sheets assigns that the district court erred in (1) admitting the tapes of Barnett's confession in violation of Neb. Rev.Stat. § 27-802 (Reissue 1995), § 27-804, and Sheets' right to confront witnesses against him, pursuant to Neb.”
State v. Sierra, 305 Neb. 249 (Neb. 2020). · cites it 3× “40 While Sierra provides annotations to several large swaths of Wolfe’s and Hanke’s testimony, he fails to describe with any specificity even a single statement by either Wolfe or Hanke that he alleges to be testimonial.”
State v. Smith, 292 Neb. 434 (Neb. 2016). · cites it 2× “802, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-802 (Reissue 2008). - 457 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 292 Nebraska R eports STATE v.”
State v. Burries, 297 Neb. 367 (Neb. 2017). · cites it 2× “803(1),90 the rule against hearsay does not exclude a “statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.”
State v. Epp, 773 N.W.2d 356 (Neb. 2009). · cites it 2× “802, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-802 (Reissue 2008). Epp asserts that the testimonies of Blessing and Forney are admissible under the residual hearsay exception.”
State v. McCurry, 296 Neb. 40 (Neb. 2017). · cites it 2× “None of the other Nebraska Rules of Evidence or other Nebraska statutes authorize admissibility of a wit- ness’ pretrial identification of a defendant as a nonhearsay statement or statement otherwise exempted or excluded from the operation and purview of the “hearsay rule,” Rule…”
State v. Gutierrez, 726 N.W.2d 542 (Neb. 2007). · cites it 2× “802, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-802 (Cum. Supp. 2006).”
State v. Childs, 309 Neb. 427 (Neb. 2021). · cites it 2× “§ 27-801 (3) (Reissue 2016) defines hearsay as a “statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted,” and Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-802 (Reissue 2016) prohibits the admission of…”
State v. Jedlicka, 297 Neb. 276 (Neb. 2017). · cites it 2× “” We stated that the fundamental inquiry to determine whether state- ments, made by a declarant who knew law enforcement was listening, had a medical purpose is “‘[i]f the challenged state- ment has some value in diagnosis or treatment, [because] the patient would still have the…”
Show all 88 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.