Neb. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 29
Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2026.01 (2026)

Verdict; finding of value of property; when required

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

When the indictment charges an offense against the property of another by larceny, embezzlement or obtaining under false pretenses, the jury, on conviction, shall ascertain and declare in its verdict the value of the property stolen, embezzled, or falsely obtained.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1967–1994 · leading case: State v. Pierce, 439 N.W.2d 435 (Neb. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Pierce, 439 N.W.2d 435 (Neb. 1989). · cites it 3× “[When the indictment charges an offense against the property of another by larceny, embezzlement, or obtaining under false pretenses, the jury, on conviction, shall ascertain and declare in its verdict the value of the property stolen, embezzled, or falsely obtained.”
State v. Schaaf, 449 N.W.2d 762 (Neb. 1989). · cites it 4× “Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-2026.01 (Reissue 1985) requires a jury to "ascertain and declare in its verdict the value of the property stolen, embezzled, or falsely obtained.”
State v. Reed, 423 N.W.2d 777 (Neb. 1988). · cites it 5× “In his third assignment, defendant claims reversible error because the trial judge did not make a finding of the value of the property taken as required in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2026.01 (Reissue 1985): “When the indictment charges an offense against the property of another by…”
State v. Culver, 444 N.W.2d 662 (Neb. 1989). · cites it 2× “01 (Reissue 1985) provides: “When the indictment charges an offense against the property of another by larceny, embezzlement or obtaining under false pretenses, the jury, on conviction, shall ascertain and declare in its verdict the value of the property stolen, embezzled, or…”
State v. Beyer, 352 N.W.2d 168 (Neb. 1984). · cites it 4× “It should be indicated, in passing, in view of the value classification orientation of all theft offenses, that note should be taken of the provisions of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-2026.01 (Reissue 1979).”
State v. Wright, 436 N.W.2d 205 (Neb. 1989). · cites it 3× “01 (Reissue 1985) states: “When the indictment charges an offense against the property of another by larceny, embezzlement or obtaining under false pretenses, the jury, on conviction, shall ascertain and declare in its verdict the value of the property stolen, embezzled, or…”
State v. Long, 516 N.W.2d 273 (Neb. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 5× “Relying on Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2026.01 (Reissue 1989), the State argued that the jury should determine the value of the property stolen.”
State v. Scott, 403 N.W.2d 351 (Neb. 1987). · cites it 3× “Such an approach only reflects the concept of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2026.01 (Reissue 1985), which remained operative after the enactment of §§ 28-510 et seq.”
State v. Frandsen, 260 N.W.2d 206 (Neb. 1977). · cites it 2× “The jury was instructed that a material element of the offense was that the defendant stole “property of value.”
State v. McKee, 164 N.W.2d 434 (Neb. 1969). · cites it 2× “Defendant cites section 29-2026.01, R. S. Supp., 1967, and Hogoboom v.”
State v. Houp, 154 N.W.2d 465 (Neb. 1967). · cites it 2× “” The jury did not “ascertain and declare in its verdict the value of the, property stolen” as required by section 29-2026.01, R. S. Supp., 1965. On April 20, 1967, the defendant moved for an order discharging him from custody.”
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.