legally cognizable claim in Nebraska

18 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2026 4 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Nebraska courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (5)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Kinsergreen neb · 1997 · cited in 6 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 1997–2020 2 sentences 2020As we further stated in Kinser: It is only when the evidence does not support a legally cognizable claim of self-defense or the evidence is so lacking in probative value, so as to constitute a failure of proof, that a trial court may properly refuse to instruct a jury on a defendant’s theory of self-defense. 252 Neb. at 606-07 , 567 N.W.2d at 292 . 2020As we further stated in Kinser: It is only when the evidence does not support a legally cognizable claim of self-defense or the evidence is so lacking in probative value, so as to constitute a failure of proof, that a trial court may properly refuse to instruct a jury on a defendant’s theory of self-defense. 252 Neb. at 606-07 , 567 N.W.2d at 292 .	2	6
State v. Urbanogreen neb · 1999 · cited in 2 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 2003–2026 2 sentences 2026Accord State v. Adams, ante p. 316, 27 N.W.3d 23 (2025). 16 Adams, supra note 15, ante at 336, 27 N.W.3d at 41 (quoting State v. Rezac, 318 Neb. 352 , 15 N.W.3d 705 (2025)). 17 Urbano, supra note 2 , 256 Neb. at 201 , 589 N.W.2d at 151 . 2026Accord State v. Adams, ante p. 316, 27 N.W.3d 23 (2025). 16 Adams, supra note 15, ante at 336, 27 N.W.3d at 41 (quoting State v. Rezac, 318 Neb. 352 , 15 N.W.3d 705 (2025)). 17 Urbano, supra note 2 , 256 Neb. at 201 , 589 N.W.2d at 151 .	1	2
State v. Rezacgreen neb · 2025 · cited in 1 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026 1 sentence 2026Accord State v. Adams, ante p. 316, 27 N.W.3d 23 (2025). 16 Adams, supra note 15, ante at 336, 27 N.W.3d at 41 (quoting State v. Rezac, 318 Neb. 352 , 15 N.W.3d 705 (2025)). 17 Urbano, supra note 2 , 256 Neb. at 201 , 589 N.W.2d at 151 .	1	1
State v. Francegreen neb · 2009 · cited in 1 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022See id.	1	1
Hodge v. Jonesgreen ca4 · 1994 · cited in 1 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 2 sentences 1999See, Hodge v. Jones, 31 F.3d 157 (4th Cir. 1994); Bella v. Chamberlain, 24 F.3d 1251 (10th Cir.1994). 1999See, Hodge v. Jones, 31 F.3d 157 (4th Cir. 1994); Bella v. Chamberlain, 24 F.3d 1251 (10th Cir. 1994).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Yeutter green neb · 1997 2 sentences 2016In State v. Yeutter, supra, the Nebraska Supreme Court held that “in prosecutions for assaulting an officer, obstructing a peace officer, or resisting arrest, [the] trial court must instruct the jury on the issue of self-defense when there is any evidence adduced which raises a legally cognizable claim that the police officer used unreasonable force in making the arrest.” Id. at 863 , 566 N.W.2d at 391 . 2015The instruction on self-defense proffered by Cahuichchii stated as follows: “In prosecutions for assaulting a police officer, or resisting arrest, a trial court must instruct the jury on the issue of self-defense where there is any evidence adduced which raises a legally cognizable claim that the officer used unreasonable force in making the arrest.” The proffered instruction was based on the Nebraska Supreme Court’s holding in State v. -4- Yeutter, 252 Neb. 857 , 566 N.W.2d 387 (1997).	5	2015–2019
State v. Iromuanya green neb · 2006 2 sentences 2019State v. Iromuanya, 272 Neb. 178 , 719 N.W.2d 263 (2006). 2019State v. Iromuanya, 272 Neb. 178 , 719 N.W.2d 263 (2006).	3	2017–2019
State v. Bedford green nebctapp · 2022 2 sentences 2024State v. Bedford, 31 Neb. 2024State v. Bedford, 31 Neb.	2	2024–2024
State v. Adams green nebctapp · 2024 2 sentences 2024Id. [12-14] It is only when the evidence does not support a legally cognizable claim of self-defense, or the evidence is so lacking in probative value as to constitute a failure of proof, that a trial court may properly refuse to instruct a jury on a defendant’s theory of self-defense. 2024Id. [12-14] It is only when the evidence does not support a legally cognizable claim of self-defense, or the evidence is so lacking in probative value as to constitute a failure of proof, that a trial court may properly refuse to instruct a jury on a defendant’s theory of self-defense.	2	2024–2024
State v. Case green neb · 2020 2 sentences 2020It is only when the evi- dence does not support a legally cognizable claim of self-defense or the - 830 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 304 Nebraska Reports STATE v. CASE Cite as 304 Neb. 829 evidence is so lacking in probative value, so as to constitute a failure of proof, that a trial court may properly refuse to instruct a jury on a defendant’s theory of self-defense. 7. 2020It is only when the evi- dence does not support a legally cognizable claim of self-defense or the - 830 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 304 Nebraska Reports STATE v. CASE Cite as 304 Neb. 829 evidence is so lacking in probative value, so as to constitute a failure of proof, that a trial court may properly refuse to instruct a jury on a defendant’s theory of self-defense. 7.	2	2020–2020
State v. Liech green neb · 2026 2 sentences 2026LIECH Cite as 320 Neb. 843 our cases have recognized there are certain factual circum- stances that generally will not support a legally cognizable claim of self-defense. 2026LIECH Cite as 320 Neb. 843 which the State must disprove. 14 But if the trial evidence does not support a claim of self-defense, the jury should not be instructed on it. 15 We have interpreted § 28-1409 to mean that “‘to successfully assert the claim of self-defense, a defendant must have a reasonable and good faith belief in the necessity of using force [and] the force used in defense must be immedi- ately necessary and justified under the circumstances.’” 16 [11-14] We have often said that a trial court must instruct the jury on self-defense “when there is any evidence adduced which raises a	1	2026–2026
Charles Bella v. Lee Chamberlain and Curtis Meyers green ca10 · 1994 2 sentences 1999See, Hodge v. Jones, 31 F.3d 157 (4th Cir. 1994); Bella v. Chamberlain, 24 F.3d 1251 (10th Cir.1994). 1999See, Hodge v. Jones, 31 F.3d 157 (4th Cir. 1994); Bella v. Chamberlain, 24 F.3d 1251 (10th Cir. 1994).	1	1999–1999

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1409 (12) NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-404 (4) NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-904 (4) NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-906 (4) NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-931 (4) NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-932 (4) NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-105 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

NY 49 (1975–2025) OK 44 (1989–2024) CT 33 (1991–2018) VT 29 (2019–2026) CA 28 (1988–2025) IL 23 (1984–2026) FL 21 (2002–2022) NE 18 (1997–2026) PA 17 (1975–2022) DC 14 (1992–2022) NC 13 (1985–2024) MI 10 (1975–2016) TX 9 (1984–2024) IN 7 (1996–2013) ME 6 (1974–2020) ND 6 (2008–2024) NJ 6 (1993–2022) DE 6 (1979–2025) MA 5 (1991–2019) OH 5 (1998–2016) MS 5 (1983–2025) OR 5 (1988–2013) TN 4 (1990–2025) WA 4 (2007–2011) CO 4 (1988–2024) MD 3 (1994–2013) VA 2 (2013–2024) WI 2 (1971–2020) WY 2 (1996–2013) ID 2 (2024–2026) MN 2 (2014–2014) AZ 2 (2018–2021) MO 2 (2009–2015) NV 2 (1988–2015)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check