Neb. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 25
Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1115 (2026)

Instructions; oral explanation prohibited; failure to reduce instructions to writing; failure of court to perform duty; effect

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

No oral explanation of any instruction authorized by the preceding sections shall, in any case, be allowed, and any instruction or charge, or any portion of a charge or instructions, given to the jury by the court and not reduced to writing, as aforesaid, or a neglect or refusal on the part of the court to perform any duty enjoined by the preceding sections, shall be error in the trial of the case, and sufficient cause for the reversal of the judgment rendered therein.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1954–2009 · leading case: Shipler v. Gen. Motors Corp., 710 N.W.2d 807 (Neb. Ct. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Shipler v. Gen. Motors Corp., 710 N.W.2d 807 (Neb. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “GM objects to the trial court’s communication with the jury in part based on Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-1115 and 25-1116 (Reissue 1995).”
State v. Hudson, 680 N.W.2d 603 (Neb. 2004). · cites it 4× “Hudson contends that the trial court violated Neb. Rev. Stat. §§25-1115 and 25-1116 (Reissue 1995) when it communicated with the jury, albeit through its bailiff, after the jury retired to deliberate.”
State v. Owen, 510 N.W.2d 503 (Neb. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 5× “See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1115 (Reissue 1989).”
State v. Thomas, 637 N.W.2d 632 (Neb. 2002). “*1001 §§ 25-1115 and 25-1116 (Reissue 1995) and is improper.”
State v. Claycamp, 714 N.W.2d 455 (Neb. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 10× “Although Claycamp does not cite or discuss Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1115 (Reissue 1995), we consider that statute as controlling in the instant case.”
In Re Petition of Omaha Pub. Power Dist., 680 N.W.2d 128 (Neb. 2004). · cites it 5× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1115 (Reissue 1995) provides: No oral explanation of any instruction authorized by the preceding sections shall, in any case, be allowed, and any instruction or charge, or any portion of a charge or instructions, given to the jury by the court and not…”
State v. McDaniel, 771 N.W.2d 173 (Neb. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “" Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-1115 (Reissue 2008). However, in order to obtain relief concerning oral instructions, the appellant must demonstrate that it was prejudiced by the trial court's actions.”
Anderson v. Evans, 83 N.W.2d 59 (Neb. 1957). · cites it 2× “1943, provides: “It shall be the duty of the judges of the several district courts, in all cases, both civil and criminal, to reduce their charges or instructions to the jury to writing, before giving the same to the jury, unless the so giving of the same is waived by the…”
Segebart Ex Rel. Segebart v. Gregory, 69 N.W.2d 315 (Neb. 1955). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff next assigns error contending that the trial court submitted an instruction involving a special finding “after the jury had arrived at a verdict,” and that in doing so the judge “must have told the jury something about this special finding” orally in violation of…”
Rakes v. State, 62 N.W.2d 273 (Neb. 1954). · cites it 2× “” By analogy, of course, if such explanatory statements are not instructions, then also section 25-1115, R. R. S. 1943, has no application.”
Owen v. Moore, 88 N.W.2d 759 (Neb. 1958). ““No oral explanation of any instruction authorized by the preceding sections shall, in any case, be allowed, and any instruction or charge, or any portion of a charge or instructions, given to the jury by the court and not reduced to writing, as aforesaid, or a neglect or…”
Omey v. Stauffer, 117 N.W.2d 481 (Neb. 1962). “§ 25-1115, R. R. S. 1943. In Dow v. Legg, 120 Neb.”
Show all 13 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.