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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.09 (2026)

✓ current as of July 2026 Cite as: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.09 (2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

39-669.09.

Transferred to section 60-6,199.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases, 1977–2017 · leading case: State v. Klingelhoefer
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Klingelhoefer (1986) neb · cites it 12× “08. Klingelhoefer has no standing in this case to raise that issue.”
State v. Miller (1983) neb · cites it 10× “Neb.Rev.Stat. § 39-669.09 (Reissue 1978) provides in part: "The law enforcement officer who requires a chemical blood, breath, or urine test pursuant to section 39-669.”
State v. Wahrman (1977) neb · cites it 22× “Having perfected his appeal to this court, defendant makes the following assignments of error: (1) The court erred in admitting and considering, under the provisions of section 39-669.09, R.R.S.1943, the results of a body fluid test which showed alcoholic content of .”
State v. Dake (1995) neb · cites it 3× “1992) which read: The person tested shall be permitted to have a physician of his or her choice evaluate his or her condition and perform or have performed whatever laboratory tests he or she *583 deems appropriate in addition to and following the test or tests administered at…”
State v. Clark (1988) neb · cites it 9× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.09 (Reissue 1984) provides: The law enforcement officer who requires a chemical blood, breath, or urine test pursuant to section 39-669.”
State v. Jasa (2017) neb · cites it 2× “2d 46 (1995), we applied the language of § 60-6,199, then codified as Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.09 (Cum. Supp. 1992).”
State v. Green (1991) neb · cites it 2× “See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.09 (Reissue 1988) (a law enforcement officer who requires a chemical test may direct whether the test will be of the blood, breath, or urine, and if a blood or urine test is directed by the officer, the arrestee may choose between the two).”
State v. Sommers (1978) neb · cites it 2× “We there said: “Section 39-669.09, R. R. S. 1943, which provides that if the officer directs that the test shall be of the person’s blood or urine, such person may choose whether the test shall be of blood or urine, does not require the officer to notify the person of his…”
State v. Hamilton (1984) neb · cites it 4× “Hamilton filed a motion to suppress the results of the breath test, alleging that the test had been obtained in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.09 (Reissue 1978).”
State v. Morse (1982) neb · cites it 2× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.09 (Reissue 1978) reads in part: “The law enforcement officer who requires a chemical blood, breath, or urine test pursuant to section 39-669.”
State v. Kolar (1980) neb · cites it 2× “The second error assigned by appellant is that, under the provisions of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.09 (Reissue 1978), the sheriff was required to transport the appellant to a facility where a physician or qualified technician of appellant’s choice could draw a blood sample, if so…”
Bauer v. Peterson (1982) neb · cites it 2× “” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.09 (Reissue 1978) provides in pertinent part: “The law enforcement officer who requires a chemical blood, breath, or urine test pursuant to section 39-669.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
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.