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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.11 (2026)

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

39-669.11.

Transferred to section 60-6,201.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases, 1977–1997 · leading case: State v. Kubik, 456 N.W.2d 487 (Neb. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Kubik, 456 N.W.2d 487 (Neb. 1990). · cites it 12× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.11 (Reissue 1988) provides: Any test made under the provisions of section 39-669.”
State v. Bjornsen, 271 N.W.2d 839 (Neb. 1978). · cites it 12× “The chemist who tested the blood sample of the defendant testified the test conformed to the standard set forth in section 39-669.11, R.R.S.1943. He testified on direct examination that the results of the test disclosed the presence of ten-hundredths of one percent of alcohol by…”
State v. Gerber, 291 N.W.2d 403 (Neb. 1980). · cites it 8× “Gerber's objection is based upon the provisions of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 39-669.11 (Reissue 1978), which provides as follows: Any test made under the provisions of section 39-669.”
State v. Engleman, 560 N.W.2d 851 (Neb. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 8× “§ 84-902 (Reissue 1994), which requires state agencies to file a certified copy of their rules and regulations with the Secretary of State.”
State v. Jablonski, 258 N.W.2d 918 (Neb. 1977). · cites it 7× “Section 39-669.11, R. R. S. 1943, provides that any test made under the provisions of section 39-669.”
State v. Obermier, 490 N.W.2d 693 (Neb. 1992). · cites it 4× “It is not necessary for the State to introduce into evidence the actual or a certified copy of an individual's state Department of Health permit to perform a blood, breath, or urine test of a suspect arrested for driving while under the influence of alcoholic liquor.”
State v. Burling, 400 N.W.2d 872 (Neb. 1987). · cites it 3× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.11 (Reissue 1984) provides that a chemical test of blood, breath, or urine made in conformity with methods approved by the Department of Health and by an individual possessing a valid permit issued by that department shall be competent evidence in any…”
State v. Dush, 332 N.W.2d 679 (Neb. 1983). · cites it 4× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.11 (Reissue 1978).”
State v. West, 350 N.W.2d 512 (Neb. 1984). · cites it 3× “The statute in question, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.11 (Reissue 1978), provides for the conditions under which such a test will be admissible in evidence.”
State v. Cash, 526 N.W.2d 447 (Neb. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “ADMISSIBILITY OF BLOOD TEST Cash argues that the chemical blood test results should have been suppressed for the following two reasons: (1) The statutory requirements were not properly followed in that the breath test given before the blood test was not properly administered,…”
State v. Dail, 424 N.W.2d 99 (Neb. 1988). · cites it 2× “The defendant contends that the district court erred in admitting into evidence the results of the preliminary breath test during the suppression hearing for the reason that insufficient foundation had been established.”
State v. Green, 348 N.W.2d 429 (Neb. 1984). · cites it 2× “Before the results of a preliminary test can be received, foundation evidence must be established following the requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.11 (Reissue 1978), including the requirements that the method of performing the preliminary test has been approved by the…”
Show all 21 citing cases →
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.11(1) — 1 case
State v. Cash, 526 N.W.2d 447 (Neb. Ct. App. 1995). “ADMISSIBILITY OF BLOOD TEST Cash argues that the chemical blood test results should have been suppressed for the following two reasons: (1) The statutory requirements were not properly followed in that the breath test given before the blood test was not properly administered,…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.11(2) — 1 case
State v. Cash, 526 N.W.2d 447 (Neb. Ct. App. 1995). “ADMISSIBILITY OF BLOOD TEST Cash argues that the chemical blood test results should have been suppressed for the following two reasons: (1) The statutory requirements were not properly followed in that the breath test given before the blood test was not properly administered,…”
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.