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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301.01 (2026)

Application; contents

✓ 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

Any county or state court, except the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Court, may authorize the commencement, prosecution, defense, or appeal therein, of a civil or criminal case in forma pauperis. An application to proceed in forma pauperis shall include an affidavit stating that the affiant is unable to pay the fees and costs or give security required to proceed with the case, the nature of the action, defense, or appeal, and the affiant's belief that he or she is entitled to redress.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2000–2025 · leading case: State v. Blake, 969 N.W.2d 399 (Neb. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Blake, 969 N.W.2d 399 (Neb. 2022). · cites it 22× “The staleness of the execution of the poverty affidavit is a relevant consideration by the district court and a proper basis for an objection under Neb.”
State v. Dallmann, 621 N.W.2d 86 (Neb. 2000). · cites it 11× “Although the substantive issues raised on appeal are significant, this appeal also requires us to address whether a poverty affidavit that fails to state the nature of the action and that the appellant is entitled to redress is sufficient under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301.01 (Cum.…”
State v. Campbell, 620 N.W.2d 750 (Neb. 2001). · cites it 5× “The State asserts that although Campbell filed an affidavit, she failed to file an “application” as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301.01 (Cum. Supp. 2000), which states: Any county or state court, except the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court, may authorize the…”
State v. Grant, 623 N.W.2d 337 (Neb. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 6× “” The State has challenged this court’s jurisdiction because Grant “failed to include statements required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301.01 (Supp. 1999) in his affidavit in support of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis.”
State v. McLemore, 623 N.W.2d 315 (Neb. 2001). · cites it 4× “The State claims this court lacks jurisdiction over McLemore’s appeal because McLemore failed to comply with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301.01 (Cum. Supp. 2000), which sets forth the procedure for commencing an appeal in forma pauperis.”
State v. Heitman, 629 N.W.2d 542 (Neb. 2001). · cites it 2× “Specifically, the State argues that Heitman filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in which he failed to state in his poverty affidavit the nature of the action, defense, or appeal and a statement of his belief that he is entitled to redress as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. §…”
State v. Jones, 650 N.W.2d 798 (Neb. 2002). · cites it 2× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301.01 (Cum. Supp. 2000).”
State v. Tiffany M., 871 N.W.2d 230 (Neb. 2015). · cites it 2× “A party seeking such permission must file an application including a poverty “affidavit stating that the affiant is unable to pay the fees and costs or give security required to proceed with the case, the nature of the action, defense, or appeal, and the affiant’s belief that he…”
Smith v. King, 953 N.W.2d 258 (Neb. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2×
Mumin v. Frakes, 904 N.W.2d 667 (Neb. 2017). · cites it 3× “”13 We have not construed this language to mandate separate poverty affidavits and IFP appli- cations; instead, we hold that as long as the poverty affidavit itself includes an indication that the party is applying for IFP status, § 25-2301.01 does not require that a separate…”
State v. Blake, 310 Neb. 769 (2022). · cites it 22× “The staleness of the execution of the poverty affidavit is a relevant consideration by the district court and a proper basis for an objection under Neb.”
Sabino v. Genchi Ozuna, 928 N.W.2d 778 (Neb. 2019). · cites it 2× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301.01 (Reissue 2016) authorizes the district court to grant in forma pauperis status.”
Show all 31 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.