Neb. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 43
Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-260.02 (2026)

Juvenile pretrial diversion program; authorized

✓ 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

A county attorney may establish a juvenile pretrial diversion program with the concurrence of the county board. If the county is part of a multicounty juvenile services plan under the Nebraska County Juvenile Services Plan Act, the county attorney may establish a juvenile pretrial diversion program in conjunction with other county attorneys from counties that are a part of such multicounty plan. A city attorney may establish a juvenile pretrial diversion program with the concurrence of the governing body of the city. Such programs shall meet the requirements of sections 43-260.02 to 43-260.07.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 48 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 2009–2025 · leading case: State v. Leroux, 916 N.W.2d 903 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Leroux, 916 N.W.2d 903 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “(c) Neutral Factors The district court found four of the factors set forth in § 43-276(1) to be either inapplicable or incapable of being determined at this stage of the proceedings, namely: (c) motivation for the commission of the offense, (j) whether the victim agrees to…”
State v. Hunt, 909 N.W.2d 363 (Neb. 2018). “juvenile and the security of the public may require that the juvenile continue in secure detention or under supervision for a period extending beyond his or her minority and, if so, the available alternatives best suited to this purpose; (j) whether the victim agrees to…”
State v. Tyler P., 911 N.W.2d 260 (Neb. 2018). “juvenile and the security of the public may require that the juvenile continue in secure detention or under supervision for a period extending beyond his or her minority and, if so, the available alternatives best suited to this purpose; (j) whether the victim agrees to…”
State v. Goodwin, 774 N.W.2d 733 (Neb. 2009). “uvenile and the security of the public may require that the juvenile continue in secure detention or under supervision for a period extending beyond his or her minority and, if so, the available alternatives best suited to this purpose; (9) whether the victim agrees to…”
State v. Esai P., 942 N.W.2d 416 (Neb. Ct. App. 2020). “07; (l) whether the juvenile has been convicted of or has acknowledged unauthorized use or possession of a firearm; (m) whether a juvenile court order has been issued for the juvenile pursuant to section 43-2,106.”
State v. Jeremiah T., 21 N.W.3d 313 (Neb. 2025). “07; (l) whether the juvenile has been convicted of or has acknowledged unauthorized use or possession of a firearm; (m) whether a juvenile court order has been issued for the juvenile pursuant to section 43-2,106.”
In re Interest of William E., 950 N.W.2d 392 (Neb. Ct. App. 2020). “07,” see § 43-276(1)(k); and “whether a juvenile court order has been issued for the juvenile pursuant to section 43-2,106.”
State v. Lu, 10 N.W.3d 382 (Neb. Ct. App. 2024). “[3-5] As the Nebraska Supreme Court has explained, in conducting a hearing on a motion to transfer a pending criminal case to juvenile court, “[i]t is a balancing test by which public protection and societal security are weighed against the practical and nonproblematical…”
State v. Blimling, 911 N.W.2d 287 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018). “ile and the security of the public may require that the juvenile continue in secure detention or under supervision for a period extending beyond his or her minority and, if so, the available alternatives best suited to this purpose; (j) whether the victim agrees to participate…”
State v. Comer, 918 N.W.2d 13 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018). “ile and the security of the public may require that the juvenile continue in secure detention or under supervision for a period extending beyond his or her minority and, if so, the available alternatives best suited to this purpose; (j) whether the victim agrees to participate…”
State v. Moreno, 947 N.W.2d 330 (Neb. Ct. App. 2020). “MORENO The customary rules of evidence shall not be followed at such hearing, and “[a]fter considering all the evidence and reasons presented by both parties, the case shall be transferred to juvenile court unless a sound basis exists for retaining the case in county court or…”
State v. Burris, 965 N.W.2d 828 (Neb. Ct. App. 2021). “See § 29-1816(3)(a). As the Nebraska Supreme Court has explained, in conducting a hearing on a motion to transfer a pending criminal case to juvenile court, the court should employ “a balancing test by which public protection and societal security are weighed against the…”
Show all 48 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.