Neb. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 39
Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-664 (2026)

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

39-664.

Transferred to section 60-6,192.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1980–1992 · leading case: State v. Lomack, 476 N.W.2d 237 (Neb. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Lomack, 476 N.W.2d 237 (Neb. 1991). · cites it 13× “REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF RADAR-DETERMINED VELOCITY Before evidence of a vehicular speed determined by use of *371 radar equipment is admissible, the State, as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-664 (1) (Reissue 1988), must establish the equipment’s accuracy when the…”
State v. Chambers, 444 N.W.2d 667 (Neb. 1989). · cites it 10× “Much of Chambers' brief revolves around the assertion that Stivers' stopwatch is an "electronic speed measurement" device within the purview of Neb. Rev.Stat. § 39-664 (Reissue 1988), which provides in part: (1) Determinations made regarding the speed of any motor vehicle based…”
State v. Chambers, 299 N.W.2d 780 (Neb. 1980). · cites it 8× “The defendant has appealed to this court and contends the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the judgment and that the trial court erred in allowing the State to rely on Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-664 (Reissue 1978). *612 The offense occurred at about 2:15 p.”
State v. Kincaid, 453 N.W.2d 738 (Neb. 1990). · cites it 7× “Defendant first contends, in sum, that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the radar readout, when the foundational evidence was inadequate to establish that the radar unit was functioning properly and adequately, as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-664 (1) (Reissue…”
State v. Chambers, 486 N.W.2d 481 (Neb. 1992). · cites it 4× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-664 (Reissue 1988) provides in part: (1) Determinations made regarding the speed of any motor vehicle based upon the visual observation of any law enforcement officer may be corroborated by the use of radio microwaves or other electronic device.”
State v. Chambers, 486 N.W.2d 219 (Neb. 1992). · cites it 5× “The defendant first contends that the district court erred in failing to find that the county court erred in receiving, over his objection, the speed reading taken from the VASCAR unit, and he premises his argument upon Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-664 (Reissue 1988). That section…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-664(1) — 2 cases
State v. Lomack, 476 N.W.2d 237 (Neb. 1991). “REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF RADAR-DETERMINED VELOCITY Before evidence of a vehicular speed determined by use of *371 radar equipment is admissible, the State, as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-664 (1) (Reissue 1988), must establish the equipment’s accuracy when the…”
State v. Kincaid, 453 N.W.2d 738 (Neb. 1990). “Defendant first contends, in sum, that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the radar readout, when the foundational evidence was inadequate to establish that the radar unit was functioning properly and adequately, as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-664 (1) (Reissue…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-664(2) — 1 case
State v. Kincaid, 453 N.W.2d 738 (Neb. 1990). “Defendant first contends, in sum, that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the radar readout, when the foundational evidence was inadequate to establish that the radar unit was functioning properly and adequately, as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-664 (1) (Reissue…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-664(d) — 1 case
State v. Chambers, 486 N.W.2d 219 (Neb. 1992). “The defendant first contends that the district court erred in failing to find that the county court erred in receiving, over his objection, the speed reading taken from the VASCAR unit, and he premises his argument upon Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-664 (Reissue 1988). That section…”
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.