(1) An application to proceed in forma pauperis shall be granted unless there is an objection that the party filing the application (a) has sufficient funds to pay costs, fees, or security or (b) is asserting legal positions which are frivolous or malicious. The objection to the application shall be made within thirty days after the filing of the application or at any time if the ground for the objection is that the initial application was fraudulent. Such objection may be made by the court on its own motion or on the motion of any interested person. The motion objecting to the application shall specifically set forth the grounds of the objection. An evidentiary hearing shall be conducted on the objection unless the objection is by the court on its own motion on the grounds that the applicant is asserting legal positions which are frivolous or malicious. If no hearing is held, the court shall provide a written statement of its reasons, findings, and conclusions for denial of the applicant's application to proceed in forma pauperis which shall become a part of the record of the proceeding. If an objection is sustained, the party filing the application shall have thirty days after the ruling or issuance of the statement to proceed with an action or appeal upon payment of fees, costs, or security notwithstanding the subsequent expiration of any statute of limitations or deadline for appeal. In any event, the court shall not deny an application on the basis that the appellant's legal positions are frivolous or malicious if to do so would deny a defendant his or her constitutional right to appeal in a felony case.
(2) In the event that an application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied and an appeal is taken therefrom, the aggrieved party may make application for a transcript of the hearing on in forma pauperis eligibility. Upon such application, the court shall order the transcript to be prepared and the cost shall be paid by the county in the same manner as other claims are paid. The appellate court shall review the decision denying in forma pauperis eligibility de novo on the record based on the transcript of the hearing or the written statement of the court.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
61
cases (
13 in the last 5 years), 2000–2026 · leading case:
State v. Blake, 310 Neb. 769 (Neb. 2022).
State v. Blake, 310 Neb. 769 (Neb. 2022).
· cites it 14× “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. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301.02 (Reissue 2016), which shall be made within 30 days after the filing of the appli- cation or at any…”
Glass v. Kenney, 687 N.W.2d 907 (Neb. 2004).
· cites it 20× “S-03-036, Glass claims that the district court erred in determining that his habeas corpus petition was frivolous under State v.”
State on behalf of Jakai C. v. Tiffany M., 292 Neb. 68 (Neb. 2015).
· cites it 27× “A district court’s denial of in forma pauperis status under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301.02 (Reissue 2008) is reviewed de novo on the record based on the transcript of the hearing or the written statement of the court.”
Smith v. Wedekind, 302 Neb. 387 (Neb. 2019).
· cites it 13× “The court did so under its authority conferred by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301.02 (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Ely, 889 N.W.2d 377 (Neb. 2017).
· cites it 5× “A district court’s denial of in forma pauperis status under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301.02 (Reissue 2016) is reviewed de novo on the record based on the transcript of the hearing or written statement of the court.”
Mumin v. Frakes, 298 Neb. 381 (Neb. 2017).
· cites it 17× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301.02 (Reissue 2016) con- templates only two circumstances under which a court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, assuming the application and affidavit is proper: (1) when the evidentiary hearing shows the applicant has sufficient funds to pay…”
Robinson v. Houston, 298 Neb. 746 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 17× “Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301.02 (Reissue 2016), a party’s application to proceed in forma pauperis must generally be granted unless an objection is raised by another party or the court that the applicant either has sufficient funds to pay costs, fees, or security or is…”
Haynes v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs., 993 N.W.2d 97 (Neb. 2023).
· cites it 9× “Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301.02 (Reissue 2016), the lower court retains jurisdiction to determine the validity of the affidavit.”
Cole v. Blum, 637 N.W.2d 606 (Neb. 2002).
· cites it 12× “INTRODUCTION On February 28, 2001, the Lancaster County District Court denied Frankie Levi Cole’s petition to proceed in forma pauperis, finding that the action was frivolous pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301.02 (1) (Cum. Supp.”
State v. Jones, 650 N.W.2d 798 (Neb. 2002).
· cites it 4× “In any event, the court shall not deny an application on the basis that the appellant’s legal positions are frivolous or malicious if to do so would deny a defendant his or her constitutional right to appeal in a felony case.”
State v. Carter, 292 Neb. 16 (Neb. 2015).
· cites it 9× “A district court’s denial of in forma pauperis status under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301.02 (Reissue 2008) is reviewed de novo on the record based on the transcript of the hearing or written statement of the court.”
State v. Rice, 888 N.W.2d 159 (Neb. 2016).
· cites it 2× “In its ruling on the application, the district court failed to consider the reasonableness of Ashford’s requested expenses and fees; instead, it determined that the appeal of the denial of the postconviction motion was frivolous and that therefore, no fees should be awarded. The…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301.02(1) — 31 cases
Glass v. Kenney, 687 N.W.2d 907 (Neb. 2004).
“S-03-036, Glass claims that the district court erred in determining that his habeas corpus petition was frivolous under State v.”
State on behalf of Jakai C. v. Tiffany M., 292 Neb. 68 (Neb. 2015).
“A district court’s denial of in forma pauperis status under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301.02 (Reissue 2008) is reviewed de novo on the record based on the transcript of the hearing or the written statement of the court.”
State v. Blake, 310 Neb. 769 (Neb. 2022).
“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. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301.02 (Reissue 2016), which shall be made within 30 days after the filing of the appli- cation or at any…”
Haynes v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs., 993 N.W.2d 97 (Neb. 2023).
“Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301.02 (Reissue 2016), the lower court retains jurisdiction to determine the validity of the affidavit.”
Robinson v. Houston, 298 Neb. 746 (Neb. 2018).
“Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301.02 (Reissue 2016), a party’s application to proceed in forma pauperis must generally be granted unless an objection is raised by another party or the court that the applicant either has sufficient funds to pay costs, fees, or security or is…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301.02(1)(a) — 1 case
Mumin v. Frakes, 298 Neb. 381 (Neb. 2017).
“Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301.02 (Reissue 2016) con- templates only two circumstances under which a court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, assuming the application and affidavit is proper: (1) when the evidentiary hearing shows the applicant has sufficient funds to pay…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301.02(1)(b) — 1 case
Mumin v. Frakes, 298 Neb. 381 (Neb. 2017).
“Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301.02 (Reissue 2016) con- templates only two circumstances under which a court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, assuming the application and affidavit is proper: (1) when the evidentiary hearing shows the applicant has sufficient funds to pay…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301.02(2) — 13 cases
Glass v. Kenney, 687 N.W.2d 907 (Neb. 2004).
“S-03-036, Glass claims that the district court erred in determining that his habeas corpus petition was frivolous under State v.”
State on behalf of Jakai C. v. Tiffany M., 292 Neb. 68 (Neb. 2015).
“A district court’s denial of in forma pauperis status under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301.02 (Reissue 2008) is reviewed de novo on the record based on the transcript of the hearing or the written statement of the court.”
Mumin v. Frakes, 298 Neb. 381 (Neb. 2017).
“Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301.02 (Reissue 2016) con- templates only two circumstances under which a court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, assuming the application and affidavit is proper: (1) when the evidentiary hearing shows the applicant has sufficient funds to pay…”
Cole v. Blum, 637 N.W.2d 606 (Neb. 2002).
“INTRODUCTION On February 28, 2001, the Lancaster County District Court denied Frankie Levi Cole’s petition to proceed in forma pauperis, finding that the action was frivolous pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301.02 (1) (Cum. Supp.”
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.