Nebraska Revised Statutes
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1808 (2026)
Motion to quash; when made
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A motion to quash may be made in all cases when there is a defect apparent upon the face of the record, including defects in the form of the indictment or in the manner in which an offense is charged.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1959–2026 · leading case: State v. Chauncey, 890 N.W.2d 453 (Neb. 2017).
State v. Chauncey, 890 N.W.2d 453 (Neb. 2017). “As explained below, we determine that the district court did not err when it appointed a special prosecutor, nor was there misconduct in the prosecutor’s legal advice to the grand jury.”
State v. Gill, 297 Neb. 852 (Neb. 2017). “There appears in the record no ruling on the November 4 motion to quash, and nothing in the record demonstrates that Gill insisted on a ruling.”
State v. Bershon, 983 N.W.2d 490 (Neb. 2023). “We conclude that because Bershon did not properly raise these objections in the district court, he did not preserve the issues for appeal.”
State v. Meers, 598 N.W.2d 435 (Neb. 1999). “Because Meers’ challenge to the amended information was *404 made orally at the motion to amend the information proceeding and orally at trial and because no motion to quash the amended information was filed, Meers has waived his challenge to the amended information.”
Nelson v. State, 94 N.W.2d 1 (Neb. 1959). “” § 29-1808, R. R. S. 1943. “The accused may demur when the facts stated in the indictment do not constitute an offense punishable by the laws of this state, or when the intent is not alleged, when proof of it is necessary to make out the offense charged.”
State v. Valencia, 290 N.W.2d 181 (Neb. 1980). “Section 29-1808, *185 R.R.S.1943, provides: "A motion to quash may be made in all cases when there is a defect apparent upon the face of the record, including defects in the form of the indictment or in the manner in which an offense is charged.”
In re Interest of Zoie H., 304 Neb. 868 (Neb. 2020). “” We have consistently held that the proper procedure for raising a facial constitutional challenge to a criminal statute is to file a motion to quash, and all defects not raised in a motion to quash are taken as waived by a defendant pleading the general issue.”
State v. Coleman, 311 N.W.2d 911 (Neb. 1981). “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1808 (Reissue 1979) provides: “A motion to quash may be made in all cases when there is a defect apparent *827 upon the face of the record, including defects in the form of the indictment or in the manner in which an offense is charged.”
State v. Severin, 553 N.W.2d 452 (Neb. 1996). “See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-1808 and 29-1810 (Reissue 1995).”
State v. Riessland, 310 Neb. 262 (Neb. 2021). “” See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1808 (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Carpenter, 551 N.W.2d 518 (Neb. 1996). “A motion for new trial is not a proper procedural method for challenging the facial validity of a statute. Id. See, also, Neb.”
State v. Prescott, 784 N.W.2d 873 (Neb. 2010). “Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-1808 (Reissue 2008) provides that "[a] motion to quash may be made in all cases when there is a defect apparent upon the face of the record, including defects in the form of the indictment or in the manner in which an offense is charged.”
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.