reglab/housing_qa huggingface dataset:
NE Code § 26-1,127 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 26 - Courts, Municipal; Civil Procedure|26-1,127 - Transferred to section 24-577.

26-1,127.  Transferred to section 24-577.
NE Code § 26-1,128 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 26 - Courts, Municipal; Civil Procedure|26-1,128 - Transferred to section 24-578.

26-1,128.  Transferred to section 24-578.
NE Code § 26-1,129 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 26 - Courts, Municipal; Civil Procedure|26-1,129 - Transferred to section 24-579.

26-1,129.  Transferred to section 24-579.
NE Code § 26-1,130 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 26 - Courts, Municipal; Civil Procedure|26-1,130 - Transferred to section 24-580.

26-1,130.  Transferred to section 24-580.
NE Code § 26-1,131 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 26 - Courts, Municipal; Civil Procedure|26-1,131 - Transferred to section 24-581.

26-1,131.  Transferred to section 24-581.
NE Code § 26-1,132 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 26 - Courts, Municipal; Civil Procedure|26-1,132 - Transferred to section 24-582.

26-1,132.  Transferred to section 24-582.
NE Code § 26-1,133 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 26 - Courts, Municipal; Civil Procedure|26-1,133 - Transferred to section 24-583.

26-1,133.  Transferred to section 24-583.
NE Code § 26-1,134 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 26 - Courts, Municipal; Civil Procedure|26-1,134 - Transferred to section 24-584.

26-1,134.  Transferred to section 24-584.
NE Code § 26-1,172 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 26 - Courts, Municipal; Civil Procedure|26-1,172 - Transferred to section 24-595.

26-1,172.  Transferred to section 24-595.
NE Code § 26-1,173 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 26 - Courts, Municipal; Civil Procedure|26-1,173 - Transferred to section 24-596.

26-1,173.  Transferred to section 24-596.
NE Code § 26-1,174 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 26 - Courts, Municipal; Civil Procedure|26-1,174 - Transferred to section 24-597.

26-1,174.  Transferred to section 24-597.
NE Code § 26-1,175 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 26 - Courts, Municipal; Civil Procedure|26-1,175 - Transferred to section 24-598.

26-1,175.  Transferred to section 24-598.
NE Code § 26-1,176 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 26 - Courts, Municipal; Civil Procedure|26-1,176 - Transferred to section 24-599.

26-1,176.  Transferred to section 24-599.
NE Code § 26-1,177 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 26 - Courts, Municipal; Civil Procedure|26-1,177 - Transferred to section 24-5,100.

26-1,177.  Transferred to section 24-5,100.
NE Code § 26-1,178 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 26 - Courts, Municipal; Civil Procedure|26-1,178 - Transferred to section 24-5,101.

26-1,178.  Transferred to section 24-5,101.
NE Code § 26-1,179 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 26 - Courts, Municipal; Civil Procedure|26-1,179 - Transferred to section 24-5,102.

26-1,179.  Transferred to section 24-5,102.
NE Code § 26-1,180 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 26 - Courts, Municipal; Civil Procedure|26-1,180 - Transferred to section 24-5,103.

26-1,180.  Transferred to section 24-5,103.
NE Code § 26-1,181 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 26 - Courts, Municipal; Civil Procedure|26-1,181 - Transferred to section 24-5,104.

26-1,181.  Transferred to section 24-5,104.
NE Code § 26-1,182 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 26 - Courts, Municipal; Civil Procedure|26-1,182 - Transferred to section 24-5,105.

26-1,182.  Transferred to section 24-5,105.
NE Code § 26-1,183 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 26 - Courts, Municipal; Civil Procedure|26-1,183 - Transferred to section 24-5,106.

26-1,183.  Transferred to section 24-5,106.
NE Code § 27-101 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence|27-101 - Rule 101. Scope.

27-101.  Rule 101. Scope.These rules govern proceedings in the courts of the State of Nebraska, except to the extent and with the exceptions stated in section 27-1101.Source  Laws 1975, LB 279, § 1. Annotations  In proceedings where the Nebraska Evidence Rules apply, the admissibility of evidence is controlled by the Nebraska Evidence Rules; judicial discretion is involved only when the rules make discretion a factor in determining admissibility. State v. Draganescu, 276 Neb. 448, 755 N.W.2d 57 (2008). When a state evidence rule is substantially similar to a corresponding federal rule of evidence, state courts may look to federal decisions interpreting the corresponding federal rule for guidance in construing the state rule. State v. Draganescu, 276 Neb. 448, 755 N.W.2d 57 (2008). Where the Nebraska Evidence Rules commit the evidentiary question at issue to the discretion of the trial court, an appellate court reviews the admissibility of evidence for an abuse of discretion. State v. Draganescu, 276 Neb. 448, 755 N.W.2d 57 (2008). At a juvenile adjudication hearing, the admissibility of evidence is governed by the customary rules of evidence used in trials without a jury. The Nebraska Evidence Rules do not apply at a dispositional hearing. The requirements of due process control a dispositional hearing and the type of evidence which may be used by the State. In re Interest of O.L.D. and M.D.D., 1 Neb. App. 471, 499 N.W.2d 552 (1993).
NE Code § 27-102 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence|27-102 - Rule 102. Purpose and construction.

27-102.  Rule 102. Purpose and construction.These rules shall be construed to secure fairness in administration, elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay, and promotion of growth and development of the law of evidence to the end that the truth may be ascertained and proceedings justly determined.Source  Laws 1975, LB 279, § 2. Annotations  Requiring a renewed objection in the case of a motion in limine, including a motion to redact, is consistent with the principles of “fairness in administration,” discovery of truth, and just determination identified in this section. State v. Huston, 285 Neb. 11, 824 N.W.2d 724 (2013). Ruling on admissibility of evidence are discretionary with the trial judge. State v. King, 197 Neb. 729, 250 N.W.2d 655 (1977).
NE Code § 27-105 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence|27-105 - Rule 105. Limited admissibility.

27-105.  Rule 105. Limited admissibility.When evidence which is admissible as to one party or for one purpose but not admissible as to another party or for another purpose is admitted, the judge, upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly.Source  Laws 1975, LB 279, § 5. Annotations  Because evidence of other acts submitted for a proper purpose may at the same time lead the jury to infer bad character and employ propensity reasoning, the trial court must, if requested by the defendant, instruct the jury to focus only on the proper purpose of the evidence. State v. Oldson, 293 Neb. 718, 884 N.W.2d 10 (2016). While the giving of a limiting instruction is mandatory when requested, it is within the trial court's discretion whether to give a limiting instruction contemporaneously with the testimony or in the general instructions to the jury. State v. Ryan, 233 Neb. 74, 444 N.W.2d 610 (1989).
NE Code § 27-301 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence|27-301 - Rule 301. Presumptions in general.

27-301.  Rule 301. Presumptions in general.In all cases not otherwise provided for by statute or by these rules a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of proving that the nonexistence of the presumed fact is more probable than its existence.Source  Laws 1975, LB 279, § 8. Annotations  The concept referred to as a "presumption of undue influence" in will contests is not a true presumption. In re Estate of Clinger, 292 Neb. 237, 872 N.W.2d 37 (2015). The trial court did not err in refusing a proposed instruction on a presumption of undue influence where both the contestant and the proponent had met their respective burdens of production of evidence. In re Estate of Clinger, 292 Neb. 237, 872 N.W.2d 37 (2015). In all cases not otherwise provided for by statute or by such rules, a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of proving that the nonexistence of the presumed fact is more probable than its existence. This rule applies to the rebuttable presumption that an opinion regarding loss of earning capacity expressed by a vocational rehabilitation counselor appointed or selected pursuant to section 48-162.01(3) is correct. Variano v. Dial Corp., 256 Neb. 318, 589 N.W.2d 845 (1999). The regulatory presumption contained in Neb. Admin. Code tit. 469, ch. 2, section 2-009.07B4 (1985), that the gratuitous transfer of an applicant's home within two years before moving into a different facility is presumed to be the transfer of a resource to qualify for public assistance, does not come within the ambit of this section of the Nebraska Evidence Rules. Meier v. State, 227 Neb. 376, 417 N.W.2d 771 (1988). The "presumption of undue influence" is not a presumption within the ambit and meaning of section 27-301. Anderson v. Claussen, 200 Neb. 74, 262 N.W.2d 438 (1978). A presumption of undue influence in executing deeds is not a presumption contemplated by this section and the burden of proof on the issue of undue influence remains on the contestant. Golgert v. Smidt, 197 Neb. 667, 250 N.W.2d 628 (1977). In contested will case, the "presumption of undue influence" is not a presumption within the ambit and meaning of this section. McGowan v. McGowan, 197 Neb. 596, 250 N.W.2d 234 (1977).
NE Code § 27-302 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence|27-302 - Rule 302. Applicability of federal law in civil cases.

27-302.  Rule 302. Applicability of federal law in civil cases.In civil actions and proceedings, the effect of a presumption respecting a fact which is an element of a claim or defense as to which federal law supplies the rule of decision is determined in accordance with the federal law.Source  Laws 1975, LB 279, § 9.
NE Code § 27-303 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence|27-303 - Rule 303. Presumptions in criminal cases; scope; submission to jury; instruction to jury.

27-303.  Rule 303. Presumptions in criminal cases; scope; submission to jury; instruction to jury.(1) Except as otherwise provided by statute, in criminal cases, presumptions against an accused, recognized at common law or created by statute, including statutory provisions that certain facts are prima facie evidence of other facts or of guilt, are governed by this rule.(2) The judge is not authorized to direct the jury to find a presumed fact against the accused. When the presumed fact establishes guilt or is an element of the offense or negatives a defense, the judge may submit the question of guilt or of the existence of the presumed fact to the jury, if, but only if, a reasonable juror on the evidence as a whole, including the evidence of the basic facts, could find guilt or the presumed fact beyond a reasonable doubt. When the presumed fact has a lesser effect, its existence may be submitted to the jury if the basic facts are supported by substantial evidence, or are otherwise established, unless the evidence as a whole negatives the existence of the presumed fact.(3) Whenever the existence of a presumed fact against the accused is submitted to the jury, the judge shall give an instruction that the law declares that the jury may regard the basic facts as sufficient evidence of the presumed fact but does not require it to do so. In addition, if the presumed fact establishes guilt or is an element of the offense or negatives a defense, the judge shall instruct the jury that its existence must, on all the evidence, be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.Source  Laws 1975, LB 279, § 10. Annotations  When a trial court instructs a jury on an inference regarding a specific fact or set of facts, the instruction must specifically include a statement explaining to the jury that it may regard the basic facts as sufficient evidence of the inferred fact, but that it is not required to do so; the instruction must also explain that the existence of the inferred facts must, on all the evidence, be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Taylor, 282 Neb. 297, 803 N.W.2d 746 (2011). References to "presumptions" in this section necessarily include "inferences." Instructions as to presumptions in criminal cases must conform to the requirements of this section. State v. Parks, 245 Neb. 205, 511 N.W.2d 774 (1994). Under subsection (3) of this section, whenever the jury in a criminal trial is instructed as to the presumption of possession found in section 28-1212, the jury must also be instructed that it is not required to accept the presumption. State v. Stalder, 231 Neb. 896, 438 N.W.2d 498 (1989).
NE Code § 27-406 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence|27-406 - Rule 406. Habit; routine practice; admissibility; method of proof.

27-406.  Rule 406. Habit; routine practice; admissibility; method of proof.(1) Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice.(2) Habit or routine practice may be proved by testimony in the form of an opinion or by specific instances of conduct sufficient in number to warrant a finding that the habit existed or that the practice was routine.Source  Laws 1975, LB 279, § 16.Annotations  Evidence was insufficient to show a routine or habit within the meaning of this section, because a single incident did not establish a routine, and the relevance of the evidence depended on the claim that the actor engaged in a deliberate volitional act, not a habit. State v. Edwards, 278 Neb. 55, 767 N.W.2d 784 (2009). Admissibility of habit evidence depends on the trial judge's evaluation of the particular facts and is thus reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Borley Storage & Transfer Co. v. Whitted, 271 Neb. 84, 710 N.W.2d 71 (2006). The precise contours of how frequently and consistently a behavior must occur to rise to the level of habit cannot be easily defined or formulated, and as with other areas of relevancy, admissibility depends on the judge's evaluation of the particular facts of the case. The exercise of judicial discretion is implicit in determinations of relevancy and admissibility under this section, and as a result, the trial court's decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Under this section, the trial court determines whether the predicate evidence necessary to prove conduct by habit has been introduced. Habit may be shown by opinion or specific instances of conduct. It is within the trial court's discretion to determine if there is sufficient foundation for a witness to give his or her opinion about an issue in question. Habit evidence is relevant because such evidence makes it more probable that the person acted in a manner consistent with that habit. Hoffart v. Hodge, 9 Neb. App. 161, 609 N.W.2d 397 (2000).
NE Code § 27-407 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence|27-407 - Rule 407. Subsequent remedial measures.

27-407.  Rule 407. Subsequent remedial measures.When, after an event, measures are taken which, if taken previously, would have made the event less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent measures when offered for another purpose, such as proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment. Negligence or culpable conduct, as used in this rule, shall include, but not be limited to, the manufacture or sale of a defective product.Source   Laws 1975, LB 279, § 17;   Laws 1978, LB 665, § 7.  Annotations  The determination of feasibility includes a consideration of whether an action would have been effective and practical. McDermott v. Platte Cty. Ag. Socy., 245 Neb. 698, 515 N.W.2d 121 (1994). This section does not require exclusion of evidence concerning subsequent repairs, alterations, or precautions, when such evidence is offered for the purpose of impeachment affecting credibility of the witness impeached. Rahmig v. Mosley Machinery Co., 226 Neb. 423, 412 N.W.2d 56 (1987). Evidence of subsequent acts is admissible on the issue of feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted. In this case, testimony to the effect that erection of snow fences would not have been a feasible precautionary measure could properly be rebutted by evidence that, subsequent to the incident giving rise to this action, snow fences were erected. Kurz v. Dinklage Feed Yard, Inc., 205 Neb. 125, 286 N.W.2d 257 (1979). "Feasibility" as used in this section includes effectiveness and practicality as well as possibility. Kurz v. Dinklage Feed Yard, Inc., 205 Neb. 125, 286 N.W.2d 257 (1979).
NE Code § 27-408 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence|27-408 - Rule 408. Compromise and offers to compromise.

27-408.  Rule 408. Compromise and offers to compromise.Evidence of (1) furnishing or offering or promising to furnish, or (2) accepting or offering or promising to accept, a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise a claim which was disputed as to either validity or amount, is not admissible to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim or its amount. Evidence of conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations is likewise not admissible. This rule does not require the exclusion of any evidence otherwise discoverable merely because it is presented in the course of compromise negotiations. This rule also does not require exclusion when the evidence is offered for another purpose, such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness, negativing a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.Source  Laws 1975, LB 279, § 18.Annotations  A notice of acquisition sent to a landowner prior to beginning condemnation proceedings constitutes a privileged communication during statutorily required negotiations and, thus, may be excluded pursuant to this section. In re Application of SID No. 384 of Douglas County, 259 Neb. 351, 609 N.W.2d 679 (2000). Although evidence of insurance is admissible for some other purposes under section 27-411, where evidence is directed solely at showing the amount for which a party settled with its insurer and where there is no showing that they had represented the value of the damaged and discarded products to be less than was claimed in the suit or for which it obtained judgment, the evidence is an inadmissible compromise or settlement pursuant to this section. Delicious Foods Co. v. Millard Warehouse, 244 Neb. 449, 507 N.W.2d 631 (1993). Any relevance to witness' testimony concerning status of her husband's lawsuit and compromise settlement with plaintiff in current suit was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury. London v. Stewart, 221 Neb. 265, 376 N.W.2d 553 (1985). Agreement on less than all issues of a dispute that is being negotiated will normally be treated as an offer to compromise under this section. Pribil v. Koinzan, 11 Neb. App. 199, 647 N.W.2d 110 (2002).
NE Code § 27-409 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence|27-409 - Rule 409. Payment of medical and similar expenses.

27-409.  Rule 409. Payment of medical and similar expenses.Evidence of furnishing or offering or promising to pay medical, hospital, or similar expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible to prove liability for the injury.Source  Laws 1975, LB 279, § 19.
NE Code § 27-410 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence|27-410 - Rule 410. Guilty plea; nolo contendere; offered plea; withdrawn plea; inadmissible; exceptions.

27-410.  Rule 410. Guilty plea; nolo contendere; offered plea; withdrawn plea; inadmissible; exceptions.Evidence of a plea of guilty, later withdrawn, or a plea of nolo contendere, or of an offer to plead guilty or nolo contendere to the crime charged or any other crime, or of statements made in connection with any of the foregoing pleas or offers, is not admissible in any civil or criminal action, case, or proceeding against the person who made the plea or offer. This rule shall not apply to the introduction of voluntary and reliable statements made in court on the record in connection with any of the foregoing pleas or offers when offered for impeachment purposes or in a subsequent prosecution of the declarant for perjury or false statement.Source  Laws 1975, LB 279, § 20. Annotations  The evidentiary rule provided in this section, that a withdrawn guilty plea is not admissible in any civil or criminal action or proceeding against the person who made it, does not apply to the sentencing stage of a criminal proceeding. State v. Klappal, 218 Neb. 374, 355 N.W.2d 221 (1984). Under some circumstances a plea of guilty entered by the defendant in a criminal action may be used against him as an admission in a subsequent action involving the same subject matter; a violation of a statute or ordinance enacted in the interest of public safety, while not negligence per se, is evidence of negligence. Schaefer v. McCreary, 216 Neb. 739, 345 N.W.2d 821 (1984). The fact of conviction resulting from a nolo contendere plea may be used in a subsequent proceeding. In re Interest of Verle O., 13 Neb. App. 256, 691 N.W.2d 177 (2005).
NE Code § 27-411 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence|27-411 - Rule 411. Liability insurance.

27-411.  Rule 411. Liability insurance.Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue whether he acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of insurance against liability when offered for another purpose, such as proof of agency, ownership, or control, or bias or prejudice of a witness.Source  Laws 1975, LB 279, § 21.Annotations  The remote potential for bias of a witness on the basis of sharing the same insurance carrier as the defendant must be balanced against the prejudicial effect of its admission. Reimer v. Surgical Servs. of the Great Plains, P.C., 258 Neb. 671, 605 N.W.2d 777 (2000). Although evidence of insurance is admissible for some other purposes under this section, where evidence is directed solely at showing the amount for which a party settled with its insurer and where there is no showing that they had represented the value of the damaged and discarded products to be less than was claimed in the suit or for which it obtained judgment, the evidence is an inadmissible compromise or settlement pursuant to section 27-408. Delicious Foods Co. v. Millard Warehouse, 244 Neb. 449, 507 N.W.2d 631 (1993). Where the existence of insurance coverage is not relevant to any issue in the case, evidence of such coverage is inadmissible. Kresha v. Kresha, 216 Neb. 377, 344 N.W.2d 906 (1984). Inadvertent mention of plaintiff's lack of health insurance is not prejudicial error requiring mistrial where it is not shown that jury inferred that plaintiff was incapable of paying expenses. Where indemnification of defendants does not logically follow from the fact that plaintiff lacked health insurance, it cannot be said that defendants were prejudiced. Bailey v. AMISUB, 1 Neb. App. 56, 489 N.W.2d 323 (1992).