Neb. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 77
Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-4301 (2026)

Terms, defined

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

For purposes of sections 77-4301 to 77-4316:

(1) Controlled substance shall mean any drug or substance, including an imitation controlled substance, that is held, possessed, transported, transferred, sold, or offered to be sold in violation of Nebraska law. Controlled substance shall not include marijuana;

(2) Dealer shall mean a person who, in violation of Nebraska law, manufactures, produces, ships, transports, or imports into Nebraska or in any manner acquires or possesses six or more ounces of marijuana, seven or more grams of any controlled substance which is sold by weight, or ten or more dosage units of any controlled substance which is not sold by weight;

(3) Imitation controlled substance shall have the meaning as provided in section 28-401; and

(4) Marijuana shall have the meaning as provided in section 28-401.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1993–2018 · leading case: State v. Utter, 641 N.W.2d 624 (Neb. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Utter, 641 N.W.2d 624 (Neb. 2002). · cites it 18× “The basis of Utter’s argument is generally that the State failed to prove under the controlling statutes that he was a “dealer” who distributed or possessed “seven or more grams of any controlled substance” and that, therefore, the evidence failed to establish that Utter was…”
State v. Garza, 496 N.W.2d 448 (Neb. 1993). · cites it 14× “Prior to trial, Garza filed a motion to suppress the fruits of the search warrant and a motion to quash or dismiss, which challenged the constitutionality of Nebraska’s Marijuana and Controlled Substances Tax Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 77-4301 to 77-4316 (Reissue 1990) (Tax Stamp…”
Steven Waters v. Reagan Farr, Comm'r of Revenue for the State of Tennessee, 291 S.W.3d 873 (Tenn. 2009). · cites it 3× “13 (2007); Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 77-4301 to -4316 (2003); Nev.”
State v. Detweiler, 544 N.W.2d 83 (Neb. 1996). · cites it 2× “In addition, the drug tax stamp requirement applies to any “dealer,” which Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-4301 (Cum. Supp. 1994) defines as one who, “in violation of Nebraska law, manufactures, produces, ships, transports, or imports into Nebraska or in any manner acquires or possesses…”
State v. Stubblefield, 543 N.W.2d 743 (Neb. 1996). · cites it 4× “§ 28-416 (Reissue 1989)), after a tax for the same marijuana has been assessed against him pursuant to Nebraska’s marijuana and controlled substances tax statutes, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 77-4301 to 77-4316 (Reissue 1990 & Cum.”
State v. Bensing, 547 N.W.2d 464 (Neb. 1996). · cites it 2× “See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-4301 (2) (Cum. Supp.”
State v. Buechler (Neb. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-4301 (Reissue 2009) defines a dealer as any person who possesses seven or more grams of any controlled substances which is sold by weight.”
Alexander v. Dep't of Revenue, 527 N.W.2d 852 (Neb. 1995). · cites it 2× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-4301 et seq. (Reissue 1990 & Cum.”
Steven Waters v. Reagan Farr, Comm'r of Revenue for the State of Tennessee - Concurring/Dissenting (Tenn. 2009). “13 (2007)), Nebraska ( Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-4301 through § 77-4316 (2003)), Nevada (Nev.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-4301(1) — 1 case
State v. Utter, 641 N.W.2d 624 (Neb. 2002). “The basis of Utter’s argument is generally that the State failed to prove under the controlling statutes that he was a “dealer” who distributed or possessed “seven or more grams of any controlled substance” and that, therefore, the evidence failed to establish that Utter was…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-4301(2) — 3 cases
State v. Utter, 641 N.W.2d 624 (Neb. 2002). “The basis of Utter’s argument is generally that the State failed to prove under the controlling statutes that he was a “dealer” who distributed or possessed “seven or more grams of any controlled substance” and that, therefore, the evidence failed to establish that Utter was…”
State v. Garza, 496 N.W.2d 448 (Neb. 1993). “Prior to trial, Garza filed a motion to suppress the fruits of the search warrant and a motion to quash or dismiss, which challenged the constitutionality of Nebraska’s Marijuana and Controlled Substances Tax Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 77-4301 to 77-4316 (Reissue 1990) (Tax Stamp…”
State v. Stubblefield, 543 N.W.2d 743 (Neb. 1996). “§ 28-416 (Reissue 1989)), after a tax for the same marijuana has been assessed against him pursuant to Nebraska’s marijuana and controlled substances tax statutes, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 77-4301 to 77-4316 (Reissue 1990 & Cum.”
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.