Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1413 (2026)

Use of force by person with special responsibility for care, discipline, or safety of others

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable if:

(1) The actor is the parent or guardian or other person similarly responsible for the general care and supervision of a minor or a person acting at the request of such parent, guardian, or other responsible person and:

(a) Such force is used for the purpose of safeguarding or promoting the welfare of the minor, including the prevention or punishment of his or her misconduct; and

(b) Such force used is not designed to cause or known to create a substantial risk of causing death, serious bodily harm, disfigurement, extreme pain or mental distress, or gross degradation;

(2) The actor is the guardian or other person similarly responsible for the general care and supervision of an incompetent person and:

(a) Such force is used for the purpose of safeguarding or promoting the welfare of the incompetent person, including the prevention of his or her misconduct, or, when such incompetent person is in a hospital or other institution for his or her care and custody, for the maintenance of reasonable discipline in such institution; and

(b) Such force used is not designed to cause or known to create a substantial risk of causing death, serious bodily harm, disfigurement, extreme or unnecessary pain, mental distress, or humiliation;

(3) The actor is a doctor or other therapist or a person assisting him or her at his or her direction and:

(a) Such force is used for the purpose of administering a recognized form of treatment which the actor believes to be adapted to promoting the physical or mental health of the patient; and

(b) Such treatment is administered with the consent of the patient or, if the patient is a minor or an incompetent person, with the consent of his or her parent or guardian or other person legally competent to consent in his or her behalf or the treatment is administered in an emergency when the actor believes that no one competent to consent can be consulted and that a reasonable person, wishing to safeguard the welfare of the patient, would consent;

(4) The actor is a warden or other authorized official of a correctional institution and:

(a) He or she believes that the force used is necessary for the purpose of enforcing the lawful rules or procedures of the institution, unless his or her belief in the lawfulness of the rule or procedure sought to be enforced is erroneous and his or her error is the result of ignorance or mistake as to the provisions of sections 28-1406 to 28-1416, any other provision of the criminal law, or the law governing the administration of the institution;

(b) The nature or degree of force used is not forbidden by section 28-1408 or 28-1409; and

(5) The actor is a person responsible for the safety of a vessel or an aircraft or a person acting at his or her direction and:

(a) He or she believes that the force used is necessary to prevent interference with the operation of the vessel or aircraft or obstruction of the execution of a lawful order unless such belief in the lawfulness of the order is erroneous and such error is the result of ignorance or mistake as to the law defining such authority; and

(b) If deadly force is used, its use is otherwise justifiable under sections 28-1406 to 28-1416; and

(6) The actor is a person who is authorized or required by law to maintain order or decorum in a vehicle, train, or other carrier or in a place where others are assembled, and:

(a) He or she believes that the force used is necessary for such purpose; and

(b) Such force used is not designed to cause or known to create a substantial risk of causing death, bodily harm, or extreme mental distress.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 17 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: Maria A. on behalf of Leslie G. v. Oscar G., 301 Neb. 673 (Neb. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Maria A. on behalf of Leslie G. v. Oscar G., 301 Neb. 673 (Neb. 2018). · cites it 10× “ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Maria assigns, condensed and restated, (1) that based upon the evidence presented at the show cause hearing, the district court erred in rescinding the ex parte domestic abuse protection order, and (2) that the district court erred in assigning weight to…”

Cornhusker Christian Child.'s Home, Inc. v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 416 N.W.2d 551 (Neb. 1987). · cites it 17× “26K) contravenes state common and statutory law ( Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 28-1413 (Reissue 1985) and 43-708 (Reissue 1984)); exceeds DSS’ authority under state law ( Neb.”

State v. Rocha, 286 Neb. 256 (Neb. 2013). · cites it 2× “Nebraska Advance Sheets 262 286 NEBRASKA REPORTS assault to convict him of the child abuse charges and vice versa, (3) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of negligent child abuse, and (4) the trial court erred in failing to…”

Willis v. State, 888 N.E.2d 177 (Ind. 2008). · cites it 2× “§ 45-3-107 (2007); Neb. Rev.Stat. § 28-1413 (1995); N.Y. Penal Law § 35.”

State v. Beins, 456 N.W.2d 759 (Neb. 1990). · cites it 6× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1413 (Reissue 1989) provides, in part: The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable if: (1) The actor is the parent or guardian or other person similarly responsible for the general care and supervision *653 of a minor or a person…”

State v. Kilgore, 30 Neb. Ct. App. 273 (Neb. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 13× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1413 (1) (Reissue 2016) codifies the common-law defense against criminal liabil- ity for a parent’s use of force in, among other circumstances, punishing his or her child’s misbehavior.”

State v. Miner, 343 N.W.2d 899 (Neb. 1984). · cites it 2× “The defendant responds that the act which the defendant committed was privileged under the provisions of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1413 (Reissue 1979), and therefore did not constitute an unlawful act.”

Commonwealth v. Dorvil, 32 N.E.3d 861 (Mass. 2015). “110 (exempting force “designed to cause or known to create a substantial risk of causing death, serious physical injury, disfigurement, extreme pain, or extreme mental distress”); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1413 (exempting force “designed to cause or known to create a substantial risk…”

Daily v. Bd. of Educ. of Morrill Sch. Dist., 588 N.W.2d 813 (Neb. 1999). · cites it 2× “" The primary effect of § 79-4,140, now § 79-295, was to partially repeal Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-1413 (Reissue 1985), which had provided in part: The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable if: .”

State v. Nguth, 701 N.W.2d 852 (Neb. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 14× “In 1972, the common-law rule was codified as Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1413 (Reissue 1995).”

Nolasco v. Malcom, 307 Neb. 309 (Neb. 2020). “- 321 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 307 Nebraska Reports NOLASCO v. MALCOM Cite as 307 Neb. 309 In Fisher, 38 a mother was charged with manslaughter after her 4-year-old son died.”

State v. Liech, 320 Neb. 843 (Neb. 2026). · cites it 2× “843 governs the availability of justification defenses generally; (2) Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1413 (Reissue 2016), which governs when certain law enforcement officers may claim justification; and (3) the pattern jury instruction on self-defense.”

Show all 17 citing cases →

— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1413(1) — 1 case

State v. Kilgore, 30 Neb. Ct. App. 273 (Neb. Ct. App. 2021). “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1413 (1) (Reissue 2016) codifies the common-law defense against criminal liabil- ity for a parent’s use of force in, among other circumstances, punishing his or her child’s misbehavior.”

— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1413(1)(a) — 1 case

Maria A. on behalf of Leslie G. v. Oscar G., 301 Neb. 673 (Neb. 2018). “ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Maria assigns, condensed and restated, (1) that based upon the evidence presented at the show cause hearing, the district court erred in rescinding the ex parte domestic abuse protection order, and (2) that the district court erred in assigning weight to…”

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.