Nebraska Revised Statutes
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-432 (2026)
Complaint, pleading, or proceeding; burden of proof
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) It shall not be necessary for the state to negate any exemption or exception set forth in the Uniform Controlled Substances Act in any complaint, information, indictment, or other pleading or in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding under the provisions of the act, and the burden of proof of any such exemption or exception shall be upon the person claiming its benefit.
(2) In the absence of proof that a person is the duly authorized holder of an appropriate registration or order form issued under the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, the person shall be presumed not to be the holder of such registration or form, and the burden of proof shall be upon him or her to rebut such presumption.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1985–2020 · leading case: State v. Taylor, 375 N.W.2d 610 (Neb. 1985).
State v. Taylor, 375 N.W.2d 610 (Neb. 1985). “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-432 (1) (Reissue 1979) of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, Neb.”
State v. Grutell, 305 Neb. 843 (Neb. 2020). “” At the time, the earlier codification of § 60-6,108(1) pro- vided that the statutes related to the crimes of careless driving 22 See, e.g., Neb. Rev. Stat. § 8-1121 (Reissue 2012) (“[i]n any proceeding under the Securities Act of Nebraska, the burden of proving an exemption or…”
State v. Wyatt, 575 N.W.2d 411 (Neb. Ct. App. 1998). “It shall not be necessary for the state to negate any exemption or exception set forth in this article in any complaint, information, indictment or other pleading or in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding under the provisions of this article, and the burden of proof of any…”
State v. Hawley (Neb. Ct. App. 2017). “First, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-432 (Reissue 2016), places the burden on a defendant to produce authorization to possess a controlled substance: (1) It shall not be necessary for the state to negate any exemption or exception set forth in the Uniform Controlled Substances Act in any…”
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.