Neb. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 7
Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 7-110 (2026)

Parties acting in their own behalf

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Plaintiffs shall have the liberty of prosecuting, and defendants shall have the liberty of defending, in their proper persons.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1954–2021 · leading case: Steinhausen v. HomeServices of Neb., 289 Neb. 927 (Neb. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Steinhausen v. HomeServices of Neb., 289 Neb. 927 (Neb. 2015). · cites it 3× “But, under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 7-110 (Reissue 2012), “[p]laintiffs shall have the liberty of prosecuting, and defendants shall have the liberty of defending, in their proper persons.”
Niklaus v. Abel Constr. Co., 83 N.W.2d 904 (Neb. 1957). · cites it 4× “” Section 7-110, R. R. S. 1943, provides: “Plaintiffs shall have the liberty of prosecuting, and defendants shall have the liberty of defending, in their proper persons.”
Zapata v. McHugh, 296 Neb. 216 (Neb. 2017). · cites it 2× “”11 [3] Persons not licensed to practice law in Nebraska are prohibited from prosecuting an action or filing papers in the courts of this state “on behalf of another.”
Vielehr v. Malone, 63 N.W.2d 497 (Neb. 1954). · cites it 2× “Section 7-110, R. S. 1943, provides: “Plaintiffs shall have the liberty of prosecuting, and defendants shall have the liberty of defending, in their proper persons.”
In Re Interest of Elias L., 767 N.W.2d 98 (Neb. 2009). · cites it 2× “[8] § 7-110. [9] Zannini v. Ameritrade Holding Corp.”
Schmunk v. Aquatic Solutions, 29 Neb. Ct. App. 940 (Neb. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “” The court also noted Neb. Rev. Stat. § 7-110 (Reissue 2012), which provides that “[p]laintiffs shall have the lib- erty of prosecuting, and defendants shall have the liberty of defending, in their proper persons.”
State v. Beasley, 163 N.W.2d 783 (Neb. 1969). “In the district court the defendant refused the assistance of counsel and insisted that he be allowed to represent himself.”
Huse v. Dakota Cty. Bd. of Equal. (Neb. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “As the Supreme Court in Steinhausen, supra, noted, when a -2- layperson appeals both in his own behalf and on behalf of a business entity, the proper procedure is to dismiss the appeal as to the entity but consider the merits of the appeal as to the errors assigned by the…”
Weiner v. Schrempp, 129 N.W.2d 518 (Neb. 1964). · cites it 2× “He testified that he represented himself in the preparation and the filing of the action and, as the record indicates, that the handling was by him pro se.”
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.