Upon the trial of questions of fact by the court, it shall not be necessary for the court to state its finding, except, generally, for the plaintiff or defendant, unless one of the parties request it, with a view of excepting to the decision of the court upon the questions of law involved in the trial; in which case the court shall state in writing the conclusions of fact found separately from the conclusions of law.
§ 25-1127.Trial by court; general finding; findings of fact; conclusions of law.
Article 11: Trial · Not amended since original codification · Last verified July 22, 2026
In one sentenceWhen a judge decides the facts, the court need only announce a general finding for the plaintiff or defendant unless a party asks for more, in which case it must put findings of fact in writing, kept separate from its conclusions of law.
Full Text of § 25-1127
Source
R.S.1867, Code § 297, p. 444; R.S.1913, § 7865; C.S.1922, § 8810; C.S.1929, § 20-1127; R.S.1943, § 25-1127.
Plain-English Summary
Section 25-1127 sets the default rule for bench trials — cases tried by the court instead of a jury. Ordinarily, the court is not required to explain itself in detail. It can state its finding, generally, for the plaintiff or the defendant, the way a jury’s general verdict would.
That default changes the moment a party asks for more. If either party requests it, with a view toward excepting to the court’s decision on the questions of law involved in the trial, the court must state its conclusions in writing — and it must keep the facts it found separate from the legal conclusions it drew from them. The written, separated format is what makes those legal conclusions reviewable: a party cannot meaningfully challenge a judge’s application of the law without knowing which facts the judge found and which legal rules the judge applied to them.
This mirrors what section 25-1121 does for special verdicts in jury trials — facts stated plainly enough that legal conclusions can be checked against them. Section 25-1128 then extends the general framework for jury trials to bench trials wherever it fits, and section 25-1131 applies this same fact-law separation requirement to trials conducted by a referee.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a judge have to explain every finding of fact in a bench trial?
Not unless a party asks. Section 25-1127 lets the court state its finding generally for the plaintiff or defendant unless a party requests written findings.
How does a party get the judge to put findings of fact in writing?
By requesting it, with a view of excepting to the court’s decision on the questions of law involved in the trial — that request triggers the requirement for a written statement.
Once written findings are requested, does the court have to separate facts from legal conclusions?
Yes. The statute requires the court to state in writing the conclusions of fact found separately from the conclusions of law.
Why does it matter whether facts and legal conclusions are kept separate?
A party challenging the court’s legal rulings needs to see exactly what facts the court found and what legal conclusions it drew from them, so the separation makes the court’s reasoning reviewable.
Does this section apply to jury trials?
No. It governs trial of questions of fact by the court. Section 25-1128 separately applies the jury-trial provisions of this chapter to bench trials where they fit.
Does a similar separation requirement apply to a trial conducted by a referee?
Yes. Section 25-1131 requires referees to state the facts found and the conclusions of law separately, using the same approach this section sets for the court.
Source & verification. Section text and the amendment-history citation are
reproduced verbatim from the Nebraska Legislature, Revisor of Statutes, enacted by the
Nebraska Legislature. Last verified July 22, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: bench trial findings nebraskafindings of fact conclusions of lawrequesting written findings judgetrial by court instead of juryseparate facts and law nebraska statute