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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1127 (2026)

Trial by court; general finding; findings of fact; conclusions of law

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Upon the trial of questions of fact by the court, it shall not be necessary for the court to state its finding, except, generally, for the plaintiff or defendant, unless one of the parties request it, with a view of excepting to the decision of the court upon the questions of law involved in the trial; in which case the court shall state in writing the conclusions of fact found separately from the conclusions of law.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 49 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1945–2026 · leading case: Cullinane v. Beverly Enters.-Neb., Inc., 912 N.W.2d 774 (Neb. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cullinane v. Beverly Enters.-Neb., Inc., 912 N.W.2d 774 (Neb. 2018). · cites it 3× “Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1127 (Reissue 2016), in the absence of a request by a party for specific findings, a trial court is not required to make detailed findings of fact and need only make its findings generally for the prevailing party.”
Becher v. Becher, 908 N.W.2d 12 (Neb. 2018). · cites it 2× “23 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1127 (Reissue 2016).”
Fee v. Fee, 388 N.W.2d 122 (Neb. 1986). · cites it 16× “As noted from the assignments of error, Pauline does not assail dismissal of her actions for rescission and forfeiture but, apart from the questions about prejudgment interest, contends the trial court committed reversible error in failing to comply with her request for stated…”
State v. Franklin, 489 N.W.2d 552 (Neb. 1992). · cites it 8× “No request for specific findings or for "justification" was made until after the court rendered its decision. We see no reason to require reversal of a conviction because the defendant is not satisfied with the prosecutor's understanding of the applicable law.”
State v. Vanderford, 980 N.W.2d 397 (Neb. 2022). · cites it 6× “§ 25-1127 (Reissue 2016), but that statute has no application to criminal proceedings. Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County: Robert R.”
State v. Blair, 707 N.W.2d 8 (Neb. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “Blair’s motion to alter or amend the judgment alleged that the trial court failed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1127 (Reissue 1995) regarding certain allegations of Blair’s amended motion for postconviction relief.”
Burgess v. Curly Olney's, Inc., 251 N.W.2d 888 (Neb. 1977). · cites it 5× “The court did not and it was not requested to make specific finding of fact and law as authorized by section 25-1127, R. R. S. 1943. (2) They also overlook the applicable standard and scope of review in this court in a law action where a jury is waived and the issues tried to…”
Coffey v. Coffey, 661 N.W.2d 327 (Neb. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “Stacy’s assertion that the district court did not issue specific findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to custody, despite her request to do so pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1127 (Reissue 1995), is without merit.”
Lynn v. Metro. Utils. Dist., 403 N.W.2d 335 (Neb. 1987). · cites it 5× “” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1127 (Reissue 1985) does provide a procedure in a law action whereby a party may request, and the court must specify, certain conclusions: Upon the trial of questions of fact by the court, it shall not be necessary for the court to state its finding,…”
Schroeder v. Schroeder, 918 N.W.2d 323 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1127 (Reissue 2016).”
Smith v. King, 953 N.W.2d 258 (Neb. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 3× “While both parents appear to love their children, Ashley appears to have a more even temperament.”
Lindgren v. City of Gering, 292 N.W.2d 921 (Neb. 1980). · cites it 7× “Further, each of the appellants maintains that the evidence concerning damages was insufficient to permit the court to make an award and, finally, that the trial court erred in refusing to answer some 22 questions put to it by the District, presumably pursuant to the provisions…”
Show all 49 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.