Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-413 (2026)

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

60-413.

Transferred to section 60-489.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1966–1996 · leading case: State v. Hansen, 542 N.W.2d 424 (Neb. 1996).
State v. Hansen, 542 N.W.2d 424 (Neb. 1996). · cites it 2× “§ 60-413 (1929). This discretionary authority vested in the department director was repealed in 1937 and replaced with the mandatory responsibility to revoke a driver's license upon receiving a record of the operator's criminal conviction of driving while under the influence of…”
State v. Sassen, 484 N.W.2d 469 (Neb. 1992). · cites it 2× “§ 60-430 (Reissue 1988); (2) driving without a driver’s license, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-413 (Reissue 1988) and also a Class III misdemeanor; and (3) operating a motor vehicle in violation of Neb.”
State v. Grantzinger, 458 N.W.2d 461 (Neb. 1990). · cites it 3× “§ 60-325 (Reissue 1988); and failing to carry his driver’s license, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-413 (Reissue 1988). The convictions were affirmed by the district court, and defendant appeals.”
State v. DeJesus, 347 N.W.2d 111 (Neb. 1984). · cites it 2× “Defendant is presumed to know the requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-413 (Reissue 1978), which require that every licensed driver of an automobile shall carry a “license card” which “shall be presented by the licensee for examination .”
Martindale v. State, Dir. of Motor Vehs., 147 N.W.2d 6 (Neb. 1966). “§ 60-413, R. R. S. 1943. Instead of resorting to proper legal procedure, he knowingly flaunted the law.”
State v. Meints, 393 N.W.2d 445 (Neb. 1986). · cites it 2× “Meints, was convicted by a jury in the county court for Gage County, Nebraska, of violating both Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 60-413 (count I) and 60-323 (count II) (Reissue 1984).”
Maciejewski v. Sullivan, 228 N.W.2d 294 (Neb. 1975). · cites it 2× “Appellant appealed to the District Court for Lancaster County, arguing that since he was charged and convicted under the aforementioned ordinance of the City of Lincoln rather than under section 60-413, R.”
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.