Neb. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 28
Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-427 (2026)

Additional penalties

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

Any penalty imposed for violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, any civil or administrative penalty or sanction authorized by law. A conviction or acquittal under federal law or the law of another state having a substantially similar law shall be a bar to prosecution in this state for the same act. If any person is convicted for violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, in addition to any penalty imposed by the court, the court may order that such person make restitution to any law enforcement agency for reasonable expenditures made in the purchase of any controlled substances from such person or his or her agent as part of the investigation leading to such conviction.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2023 · leading case: State v. Holmes, 379 N.W.2d 765 (Neb. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Holmes, 379 N.W.2d 765 (Neb. 1986). · cites it 43× “The county attorney then, by oral motion, requested that the trial court, pursuant to Neb.Rev. Stat. § 28-427 (Reissue 1979), order the defendant to make restitution in the amount of $6,390 to the Nebraska State Patrol for the purchase of controlled substances.”
State v. Thomas, 574 N.W.2d 542 (Neb. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 13× “Thomas appeals his sentence, contending that his attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel at the sentencing hearing, that his sentence of 8 to 15 years’ imprisonment was excessive, and that the restitution order of $750 exceeded that permissible under Neb. Rev. Stat.…”
State v. Duran, 401 N.W.2d 482 (Neb. 1987). · cites it 7× “2d 765 (1986), we held that restitution ordered (return of drug buy money) pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-427 (Reissue 1985) was in the nature of a civil or administrative penalty, not a criminal penalty imposed as punishment for the crime.”
State v. Rios, 465 N.W.2d 611 (Neb. 1991). · cites it 5× “Rios assigns as error the trial court’s (1) restitution order, as requiring a greater payment than authorized by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-427 (Reissue 1989), and (2) imposition of an excessive sentence.”
State v. War Bonnett, 428 N.W.2d 508 (Neb. 1988). · cites it 4× “2d 765 (1986), this court held that restitution (the retaining of drug-buy money) pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-427 (Reissue 1985) was in the nature of a civil or administrative penalty, not a criminal penalty imposed as punishment for the crime.”
State v. Stueben, 481 N.W.2d 178 (Neb. 1992). · cites it 2× “While appellant is correct in asserting that the penalty of restitution ordered by the trial court is a criminal penalty, rather than its civil counterpart codified at Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-427 (Reissue 1989), see State v.”
State v. Dolinar, 995 N.W.2d 18 (Neb. 2023). “Furthermore, we note that § 28-427 provides, “Any penalty imposed for viola- tion of the .”
State v. Harris, 765 N.W.2d 673 (Neb. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 8× “We find that the district court abused its discretion in imposing a restitution order exceeding that allowed by Neb. Rev.Stat. § 28-427 (Reissue 2008), and we modify the restitution order accordingly.”
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.