Neb. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 30
Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2328 (2026)

Holographic will

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

An instrument which purports to be testamentary in nature but does not comply with section 30-2327 is valid as a holographic will, whether or not witnessed, if the signature, the material provisions, and an indication of the date of signing are in the handwriting of the testator and, in the absence of such indication of date, if such instrument is the only such instrument or contains no inconsistency with any like instrument or if such date is determinable from the contents of such instrument, from extrinsic circumstances, or from any other evidence.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2023 · leading case: In Re Est. of Foxley, 575 N.W.2d 150 (Neb. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Est. of Foxley, 575 N.W.2d 150 (Neb. 1998). · cites it 10× “Therefore, the Court of Appeals found the codicil to be a valid holograph to be given effect as a testamentary instrument pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2328 (Reissue 1995).”
In Re Est. of Foxley, 568 N.W.2d 912 (Neb. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 13× “It is also undisputed that the changes made on the photocopy of the will were not executed with the formalities required by § 30-2327, and thus, unless the changes made on the photocopy qualify it as a holographic document under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2328 (Reissue 1995), the…”
Lovorn v. Brethouwer (In Re Est. of Tiedeman), 25 Neb. Ct. App. 722 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 7× “Brethouwer then filed a motion for summary judgment, requesting judgment as a matter of law that the purported will "did not express sufficient testamentary intent as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2328 (Reissue 2008).”
In re Est. of Walker, 315 Neb. 510 (Neb. 2023). · cites it 3× “18 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2328 (Reissue 2016).”
Cummings v. Curtiss, 361 N.W.2d 508 (Neb. 1985). · cites it 3× “In December of 1982 the plaintiff “discovered” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2328 (Reissue 1979) concerning holographic wills, and subsequently filed this action for fraudulent misrepresentation.”
Matthews v. Matthews-Baker, 702 N.W.2d 821 (Neb. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2328 (Reissue 1995) (defining holographic will).”
In Re Est. of Wells, 497 N.W.2d 683 (Neb. 1993). · cites it 14× “The trial court specifically found that the holographic will failed to comply with the provisions of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 30-2328 (Reissue 1989), relating to an indication of the date of signing, and declared the holographic will to be invalid.”
In re Est. of Tiedeman, 25 Neb. Ct. App. 722 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 7× “Brethouwer then filed a motion for summary judgment, requesting judgment as a matter of law that the purported will “did not express sufficient testamentary intent as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2328 (Reissue 2008).”
In Re Est. of Casselman, 364 N.W.2d 27 (Neb. 1985). · cites it 2× “*520 § 30-2209(53) (Reissue 1979) as “any instrument, including any codicil or other testamentary instrument complying with sections 30-2326 to 30-2338, which disposes of personal or real property, appoints a personal representative, conservator, guardian, or trustee, revokes or…”
In re Est. of Pluhacek, 296 Neb. 528 (Neb. 2017). · cites it 5× “§ 30-2327 (Reissue 2016) because portions of the document were handwritten and further concluded that the document was not admissible as a holographic will under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2328 (Reissue 2016).”
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.