Nebraska Revised Statutes
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.08 (2026)
Transferred to section 60-6,197
✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
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).
State v. Orosco, 260 N.W.2d 303 (Neb. 1977). “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. Beerbohm, 427 N.W.2d 75 (Neb. 1988). “09 (Reissue 1984) provides in relevant part: The law enforcement officer who requires a chemical blood, breath, or urine test pursuant to section 39-669.08 may direct whether the test shall be of blood, breath, or urine; Provided, that when the officer directs that the test…”
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…”
Sedlacek v. Pearson, 284 N.W.2d 556 (Neb. 1979). “First: The language of the opinion tends to create uncertainty as to the meaning of the implied consent statutes, section 39-669.08 et seq., R.R.S.1943, where, under the prior opinions of this court, such uncertainty did not exist.”
State v. Klingelhoefer, 382 N.W.2d 366 (Neb. 1986). “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). “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). “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). “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). “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). “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.08 (5) (Reissue 1988).”
State v. Howard, 225 N.W.2d 391 (Neb. 1975). “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). “§ 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.”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.08(1): 2 cases
State v. Green, 348 N.W.2d 429 (Neb. 1984).
Sedlacek v. Pearson, 284 N.W.2d 556 (Neb. 1979). “First: The language of the opinion tends to create uncertainty as to the meaning of the implied consent statutes, section 39-669.08 et seq., R.R.S.1943, where, under the prior opinions of this court, such uncertainty did not exist.”
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).
State v. Howard, 571 N.W.2d 308 (Neb. 1997).
State v. Green, 471 N.W.2d 402 (Neb. 1991).
Sedlacek v. Pearson, 284 N.W.2d 556 (Neb. 1979). “First: The language of the opinion tends to create uncertainty as to the meaning of the implied consent statutes, section 39-669.08 et seq., R.R.S.1943, where, under the prior opinions of this court, such uncertainty did not exist.”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.08(4): 6 cases
State v. Beerbohm, 427 N.W.2d 75 (Neb. 1988). “09 (Reissue 1984) provides in relevant part: The law enforcement officer who requires a chemical blood, breath, or urine test pursuant to section 39-669.08 may direct whether the test shall be of blood, breath, or urine; Provided, that when the officer directs that the test…”
Sedlacek v. Pearson, 284 N.W.2d 556 (Neb. 1979). “First: The language of the opinion tends to create uncertainty as to the meaning of the implied consent statutes, section 39-669.08 et seq., R.R.S.1943, where, under the prior opinions of this court, such uncertainty did not exist.”
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).
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). “First: The language of the opinion tends to create uncertainty as to the meaning of the implied consent statutes, section 39-669.08 et seq., R.R.S.1943, where, under the prior opinions of this court, such uncertainty did not exist.”
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.