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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.08 (2026)

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

39-669.08.

Transferred to section 60-6,197.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 82 cases, 1974–1997 · leading case: State v. Orosco, 260 N.W.2d 303 (Neb. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Orosco, 260 N.W.2d 303 (Neb. 1977). · cites it 25× “1943, and of refusing to submit to a chemical test of his blood, breath, or urine for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his body fluid in violation of the provisions of section 39-669.08 (4), R. R. S. 1943. The conviction under section 39-669.”
State v. Gerber, 291 N.W.2d 403 (Neb. 1980). · cites it 12× “11 (Reissue 1978), which provides as follows: Any test made under the provisions of section 39-669.08, if made in conformity with the requirements of this section, shall be competent evidence in any prosecution under a state statute or city or village ordinance involving…”
State v. Klingelhoefer, 382 N.W.2d 366 (Neb. 1986). · cites it 10× “07 (Reissue 1984), and with refusing to submit to a chemical test of his breath, in violation of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 39-669.08 (Reissue 1984).”
State v. Blankenfeld, 427 N.W.2d 65 (Neb. 1988). · cites it 24× “Notwithstanding the mistaken reference in the information to the statute concerning a refusal to submit to testing, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 39-669.08 (Reissue 1984), it is clear that everyone at the trial court level—prosecution, defense, and judge—read the information as if it referred…”
State v. Cash, 526 N.W.2d 447 (Neb. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 21× “Beckman then transported Cash to Nemaha County Hospital in Auburn, Nebraska, so that a blood test could be performed on Cash as prescribed under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.08 (4) (Cum. Supp.”
Hoyle v. Peterson, 343 N.W.2d 730 (Neb. 1984). · cites it 8× “le appeals the judgment of the district court for Lancaster County, Nebraska, affirming an order of Harry "Pete" Peterson, director of the Department of Motor Vehicles, State of Nebraska, namely, revocation of Hoyle's Nebraska operator's license and operating privileges for 6…”
State v. Clark, 425 N.W.2d 347 (Neb. 1988). · cites it 16× “Clark guilty of refusing to submit to a blood-alcohol test authorized by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.08 (Cum. Supp. 1986).”
Smith v. State, Dept. of Motor Vehs., 535 N.W.2d 694 (Neb. 1995). · cites it 4× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.08 (5) (Reissue 1988).”
State v. Howard, 225 N.W.2d 391 (Neb. 1975). · cites it 16× “It is also clear that the defendant, through his counsel, waived technical foundational requirements, such as tracing the sample and the qualifications and testimony of the person who made the test, and was questioning solely the competence of the report as evidence.”
MacKey v. Dir. of the Dep't of Motor Vehs., 235 N.W.2d 394 (Neb. 1975). · cites it 11× “§ 39-669.08, R. R. S. 1943. In this appeal plaintiff asserts: (1) The evidence was insufficient to permit the trial court to find that the arresting officer had reasonable ground to believe that Mackey was driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.”
State v. Green, 348 N.W.2d 429 (Neb. 1984). · cites it 6× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.08 (3) (Cum. Supp.”
Branch v. Wilkinson, 256 N.W.2d 307 (Neb. 1977). · cites it 4× “The plaintiff argues that the physician-patient privilege does not apply to the results of the blood alcohol test because of the provisions of the implied consent statute, section 39-669.08, R.R.S.1943. It has been held that a blood sample secured pursuant to an implied consent…”
Show all 82 citing cases →
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.08(1) — 2 cases
State v. Green, 348 N.W.2d 429 (Neb. 1984). “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.08 (3) (Cum. Supp.”
Sedlacek v. Pearson, 284 N.W.2d 556 (Neb. 1979).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.08(10) — 1 case
State v. Smith, 537 N.W.2d 539 (Neb. Ct. App. 1995).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.08(2) — 7 cases
State v. Baker, 395 N.W.2d 766 (Neb. 1986).
State v. Cash, 526 N.W.2d 447 (Neb. Ct. App. 1995). “Beckman then transported Cash to Nemaha County Hospital in Auburn, Nebraska, so that a blood test could be performed on Cash as prescribed under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.08 (4) (Cum. Supp.”
Bapat v. Jensen, 371 N.W.2d 742 (Neb. 1985).
State v. Grantzinger, 458 N.W.2d 461 (Neb. 1990).
Emmons v. Jensen, 378 N.W.2d 147 (Neb. 1985).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.08(3) — 8 cases
State v. Gerber, 291 N.W.2d 403 (Neb. 1980). “11 (Reissue 1978), which provides as follows: Any test made under the provisions of section 39-669.08, if made in conformity with the requirements of this section, shall be competent evidence in any prosecution under a state statute or city or village ordinance involving…”
State v. Green, 348 N.W.2d 429 (Neb. 1984). “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.08 (3) (Cum. Supp.”
State v. Howard, 571 N.W.2d 308 (Neb. 1997).
State v. Green, 471 N.W.2d 402 (Neb. 1991).
State v. Green, 427 N.W.2d 304 (Neb. 1988).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.08(4) — 6 cases
State v. Smith, 352 N.W.2d 620 (Neb. 1984).
State v. Clark, 425 N.W.2d 347 (Neb. 1988). “Clark guilty of refusing to submit to a blood-alcohol test authorized by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.08 (Cum. Supp. 1986).”
Neil v. Peterson, 314 N.W.2d 275 (Neb. 1982).
State v. Beerbohm, 427 N.W.2d 75 (Neb. 1988).
State v. Nelson, 509 N.W.2d 232 (Neb. Ct. App. 1993).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.08(4)(a) — 3 cases
State v. Fix, 365 N.W.2d 471 (Neb. 1985).
State v. Contreras, 461 N.W.2d 562 (Neb. 1990).
State v. Boyd, 493 N.W.2d 344 (Neb. 1992).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.08(4)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Blankenfeld, 427 N.W.2d 65 (Neb. 1988). “Notwithstanding the mistaken reference in the information to the statute concerning a refusal to submit to testing, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 39-669.08 (Reissue 1984), it is clear that everyone at the trial court level—prosecution, defense, and judge—read the information as if it referred…”
Blankenfeld v. Clarke, 753 F. Supp. 1498 (D. Neb. 1990).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.08(5) — 4 cases
Smith v. State, Dept. of Motor Vehs., 535 N.W.2d 694 (Neb. 1995). “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.08 (5) (Reissue 1988).”
MacKey v. Dir. of the Dep't of Motor Vehs., 235 N.W.2d 394 (Neb. 1975). “§ 39-669.08, R. R. S. 1943. In this appeal plaintiff asserts: (1) The evidence was insufficient to permit the trial court to find that the arresting officer had reasonable ground to believe that Mackey was driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.”
State v. Wiltshire, 491 N.W.2d 324 (Neb. 1992).
Sedlacek v. Pearson, 284 N.W.2d 556 (Neb. 1979).
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.