(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 28-1414, the use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable to protect a third person when:
(a) The actor would be justified under section 28-1409 in using such force to protect himself against the injury he believes to be threatened to the person whom he seeks to protect;
(b) Under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be, the person whom he seeks to protect would be justified in using such protective force; and
(c) The actor believes that his intervention is necessary for the protection of such other person.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section:
(a) When the actor would be obliged under section 28-1409 to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing or to comply with a demand before using force in self-protection, he shall not be obliged to do so before using force for the protection of another person, unless he knows that he can thereby secure the complete safety of such other person;
(b) When the person whom the actor seeks to protect would be obliged under section 28-1409 to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing or to comply with a demand if he knew that he could obtain complete safety by so doing, the actor is obliged to try to cause him to do so before using force in his protection if the actor knows that he can obtain complete safety in that way; and
(c) Neither the actor nor the person whom he seeks to protect is obliged to retreat when in the other's dwelling or place of work to any greater extent than in his own.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case:
State v. Beehn, 303 Neb. 172 (Neb. 2019).
State v. Beehn, 303 Neb. 172 (Neb. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Section 28-1410 similarly states in part: (1) Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 28-1414, the use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable to protect a third person when: (a) The actor would be justified under section 28-1409 in using…”
State v. Watt, 832 N.W.2d 459 (Neb. 2013).
· cites it 2× “11 See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 28-1410 and 28-1416 (Reissue 2008).”
State v. Lopez (Neb. 2026).
· cites it 4× “Because it is a material element of a justification claim under § 28-1410 that the defendant would be justified under § 28-1409 in “using such force to protect himself against the injury he believes to be threatened” 19 against the one he seeks to protect, our analysis will…”
State v. Cook, 515 S.E.2d 127 (W. Va. 1999).
· cites it 2× “1997); Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-1410 (1975) (Repl.Vol.”
Dugan v. Sorensen, 319 Neb. 326 (Neb. 2025).
· cites it 3× “56 The district court did not err in determining there was suf- ficient evidence of a course of conduct to warrant a harassment protection order. 2. Justification In his second assignment of error, Steve argues he was legally justified in using force against William because he…”
State v. Rieker, 318 Neb. 238 (Neb. 2025).
· cites it 2× “11 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1411 (Reissue 2016) (use of force is justifiable if actor believes it is “immediately necessary .”
State v. Winston (Neb. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 4× “Winston argues the court erroneously employed an “objective standard” when the Legislature “clearly intended a subjective standard.”
State v. Winston (Neb. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 4× “Winston argues the court erroneously employed an “objective standard” when the Legislature “clearly intended a subjective standard.”
State v. Beehn, 303 Neb. 172 (Neb. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Section 28-1410 similarly states in part: (1) Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 28-1414, the use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable to protect a third person when: (a) The actor would be justified under section 28-1409 in using…”
State v. Sheldon (Neb. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “(a) Defense of Another Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1410 (1) (Reissue 2008) authorizes an individual to use force against a person to protect a third person in instances where: (a) The actor would be justified under section 28-1409 in using such force to protect himself against the…”
Thomas Sailors v. Maxwell Hubka (8th Cir. 2022).
“2010); see also Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 28-1410 , 28-1412. We also agree with the district court that the negligent supervision and training claim was derivative of the battery claim, see Schieffer v.”
State v. Beal (Neb. Ct. App. 2014).
“” Section 28-1409 is titled “Use of force in self-protection,” § 28-1410 is titled “Use of force for protection of other persons,” § 28-1411 is titled “Use of force for protection of property,” § 28-1412 is titled “Use of force in law enforcement,” and § 28-1413 is titled “Use…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1410(1) — 1 case
State v. Lopez (Neb. 2026).
“Because it is a material element of a justification claim under § 28-1410 that the defendant would be justified under § 28-1409 in “using such force to protect himself against the injury he believes to be threatened” 19 against the one he seeks to protect, our analysis will…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1410(1)(a) — 1 case
State v. Lopez (Neb. 2026).
“Because it is a material element of a justification claim under § 28-1410 that the defendant would be justified under § 28-1409 in “using such force to protect himself against the injury he believes to be threatened” 19 against the one he seeks to protect, our analysis will…”
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.