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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-283 (2026)

Dispositional hearing; rules of evidence

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

Strict rules of evidence shall not be applied at any dispositional hearing.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2023 · leading case: In the Interest of M.D., K.T., G.A., E.A. & S.A., Minor Child., 921 N.W.2d 229 (Iowa 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In the Interest of M.D., K.T., G.A., E.A. & S.A., Minor Child., 921 N.W.2d 229 (Iowa 2018). · cites it 2× “Compare Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 43-283 (West, Westlaw through 2d Reg.”
In Re Interest of RG, 470 N.W.2d 780 (Neb. 1991). · cites it 4× “(a) Applicable Evidential Rules As to the appropriate rules of evidence, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-283 (Reissue 1988) authorizes the use of relaxed rules of evidence at “any dispositional hearing.”
In Re Interest of CW, 479 N.W.2d 105 (Neb. 1992). · cites it 7× “While Neb.Rev.Stat. § 43-283 (Reissue 1988) states, "Strict rules of evidence shall not be applied at any dispositional hearing," we have concluded that the "rules of evidence" mentioned in § 43-283 are the Nebraska Evidence Rules.”
In Re Interest of JS, 417 N.W.2d 147 (Neb. 1987). · cites it 4× “” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-283 (Reissue 1984). Although expressed in loose legislative language, the “rules of evidence” mentioned in §§ 43-279(1) and 43-283 are the Nebraska Evidence Rules, that is, Neb.”
In Re Interest of Tabatha R., 587 N.W.2d 109 (Neb. 1998). · cites it 6× “Both parents contend that the juvenile court committed reversible error, as a matter of law, through a variety of evidentiary rulings which effectively precluded them from demonstrating that DHHS' plan was not in the infant's best interests.”
Joyce S. v. Frank S., 571 N.W.2d 801 (Neb. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4× “’ Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-283 (Reissue 1984).” In re Interest of J.”
In Re Interest of DLS, 432 N.W.2d 31 (Neb. 1988). · cites it 4× “" The petition also avers that reasonable efforts made under the supervision of the court below failed to remove the conditions which endangered the child's life, limb, health, or morals, and concluded that termination of the mother's rights would be in the child's best…”
In Re Interest of Laurance S., 742 N.W.2d 484 (Neb. 2007). “2d 658 (2003), and § 43-283, the record must nevertheless support the court’s action in imposing restitution.”
State v. Larry P., 669 N.W.2d 658 (Neb. 2003). · cites it 2× “Instead, we have stated that due process controls and requires that fundamentally fair procedures be used by the State in an attempt to prove that a parent’s rights to his or her child should be terminated.”
In Re Interest of JKB, 414 N.W.2d 266 (Neb. 1987). · cites it 4× “Further, there is no verbatim record as to the circumstances under which the myriad other reports were received in the various hearings which preceded the termination proceeding; thus, we cannot determine whether the father had an opportunity to cross-examine the authors of the…”
In Re Interest of JLM, 451 N.W.2d 377 (Neb. 1990). · cites it 2× “" Neb.Rev.Stat. § 43-283 (Reissue 1984). Although expressed in loose legislative language, the "rules of evidence" mentioned in §§ 43-279(1) and 43-283 are the Nebraska Evidence Rules, that is, Neb.”
State v. Brandon M., 727 N.W.2d 230 (Neb. 2007). “2d 658 (2003), and § 43-283, the record must nevertheless support the court’s action in imposing restitution.”
Show all 27 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.