If any person, except persons convicted of some crime or offense for which they stand committed, or persons committed for treason or felony, the punishment whereof is capital, plainly and specially expressed in the warrant of commitment, now is or shall be confined in any jail of this state, or shall be unlawfully deprived of his or her liberty, and shall make application, either by him or herself or by any person on his or her behalf, to any one of the judges of the district court, or to any county judge, and does at the same time produce to such judge a copy of the commitment or cause of detention of such person, or if the person so imprisoned or detained is imprisoned or detained without any legal authority, upon making the same appear to such judge, by oath or affirmation, it shall be his duty forthwith to allow a writ of habeas corpus, which writ shall be issued forthwith by the clerk of the district court, or by the county judge, as the case may require, under the seal of the court whereof the person allowing such writ is a judge, directed to the proper officer, person or persons who detains such prisoner.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
50
cases (
9 in the last 5 years), 1943–2025 · leading case:
Sanders v. Frakes, 888 N.W.2d 514 (Neb. 2016).
Sanders v. Frakes, 888 N.W.2d 514 (Neb. 2016).
· cites it 10× “Eligibility for a writ of habeas corpus is governed by the criteria set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2801 (Reissue 2016).”
Maria T. v. Jeremy S., 915 N.W.2d 441 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 7× “" Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-2801 through 29-2824 (Reissue 2016 & Supp.”
Meyer v. Frakes, 884 N.W.2d 131 (Neb. 2016).
· cites it 3× “The information had charged the petitioner with one count of burglary and a second count of being a habitual criminal.”
Schaeffer v. Gable, 991 N.W.2d 661 (Neb. 2023).
· cites it 9× “§ 29-2801 (Reissue 2016), namely, those who are detained without having been convicted of a crime and committed for the same, those who are unlawfully deprived of their liberty, or those who are detained without any legal authority.”
Anderson v. Houston, 744 N.W.2d 410 (Neb. 2008).
· cites it 4× “[8] Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2801 (Reissue 1995) (emphasis supplied).”
Childs v. Frakes, 981 N.W.2d 598 (Neb. 2022).
· cites it 7× “2020), which explicitly excludes from the scope of habeas corpus persons convicted of some crime or offense for which they stand committed.”
Glantz v. Hopkins, 624 N.W.2d 9 (Neb. 2001).
· cites it 4× “§ 29-2801 (Reissue 1995), namely, those who are detained without having been convicted of a crime and committed for the same, those who are unlawfully deprived of their liberty, or those who are detained without any legal authority.”
O'Neal v. State, 863 N.W.2d 162 (Neb. 2015).
· cites it 8× “The State also argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction, because O’Neal failed to attach a copy of his com- mitment order to the petition, as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2801 (Reissue 2008).”
State v. Oliver, 434 N.W.2d 293 (Neb. 1989).
· cites it 4× “Are there any Nebraska statutory proceedings for evaluation and resolution of a defendant's constitutional challenge to a prior plea-based conviction? Is the majority alluding to a habeas corpus proceeding as the "separate proceeding commenced for the express purpose of setting…”
Rehbein v. Clarke, 598 N.W.2d 39 (Neb. 1999).
· cites it 3× “” The State demurred to the petition on the basis that the allegations contained in the petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and that the petition did not have attached to it a copy of Rehbein’s commitment and detention order, as required by…”
Johnson v. Kenney, 654 N.W.2d 191 (Neb. 2002).
· cites it 2× “On March 12, 2001, Johnson filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, seeking relief under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2801 et seq. (Reissue 1995).”
Gallion v. Zinn, 459 N.W.2d 214 (Neb. 1990).
· cites it 5× “On July 14, 1989, Donnelle Gallion, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-2801 et seq. (Reissue 1989), filed his pro se petition for habeas corpus relief in the district court for Lancaster County.”
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.