The plaintiff, in a civil action for the recovery of money, may, at or after the commencement thereof, have an attachment against the property of the defendant when the defendant or one of several defendants (1) has absconded with the intent to defraud his or her creditors; (2) has left the county of his or her residence to avoid the service of a summons; (3) so conceals himself or herself that a summons cannot be served upon him or her; (4) is about to remove his or her property, or a part thereof, out of the county in which the property is located, with the intent to defraud his or her creditors; (5) is about to convert his or her property, or a part thereof, into money, for the purpose of placing it beyond the reach of his or her creditors; (6) has property, or rights, in action, which he or she conceals; (7) has assigned, removed or disposed of, or is about to dispose of his or her property, or a part thereof, with the intent to defraud his or her creditors; or (8) fraudulently contracted the debt or incurred the obligation for which suit is about to be or has been brought. The grounds for attachment on a claim before it is due are set forth in section 25-1049.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases, 1953–2019 · leading case:
State v. McColery, 301 Neb. 516 (Neb. 2018).
State v. McColery, 301 Neb. 516 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 2× “, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-1001 through 25-1056 (Reissue 2016).”
Andrews v. Schram, 562 N.W.2d 50 (Neb. 1997).
· cites it 11× “Spahn in their individual capacities under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1001 et seq. (Reissue 1995).”
Aaron Ferer & Sons Co. v. Berman, 431 F. Supp. 847 (D. Neb. 1977).
· cites it 16× “1976), decision on Berman’s motion to dismiss was held in abeyance pending plaintiff’s attempt to attach a debt owed by the United States National Bank of Omaha, Nebraska, to Berman for the purpose of securing quasi *849 in rem jurisdiction pursuant to Neb.Rev. Stat. § 25-1001…”
Nat'l Reefer Serv., Inc. v. Felman, 83 N.W.2d 547 (Neb. 1957).
· cites it 6× “The requirements are that it shall contain the nature of the claim, a declaration that the claim is just, the amount of the- claim, and a declaration of -the existence of some one of the grounds of attachment enumerated in section 25-1001, R.”
Ins. Co. of North Am. v. Maxim's of Nebraska, 132 N.W.2d 885 (Neb. 1965).
· cites it 8× “This affidavit contained the necessary allegations of an an affidavit of attachment as provided for by section 25-1001, R. R. S. 1943. The plaintiff filed no bond to protect against wrongful attachment as required *275 by section 25-1003, R.”
Woodring v. Jennings State Bank, 603 F. Supp. 1060 (D. Neb. 1985).
· cites it 2× “The same day the district judge signed an attachment order finding, in essence, that the bank had satisfied the requirements of the attachment statute, Neb. Rev.Stat. §§ 25-1001 et seq. (Cum.Supp.”
CRW Mech. Consulting & Fabrication, LLC v. Sandine (D. Neb. 2019).
· cites it 22× “The Court also finds that Plaintiff has not met its burden of demonstrating one of the prerequisites for statutory attachment under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1001 (Reissue 2016) by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Ins. Co. of North Am. v. Kunin, 121 N.W.2d 372 (Neb. 1963).
· cites it 2× “te of Nebraska at the time the summons issued or at any time since then; that the garnishment proceedings were void because the affidavit had been sworn to before an attorney for the plaintiff as notary public; and, that the demand was not founded on contract and there was no…”
Sullivan v. Sullivan, 97 N.W.2d 348 (Neb. 1959).
“The theory of the defendant appears to be that the act permits garnishment before judgment on affidavit alone, as he contends was done in this case, whereas in an original action instituted in this state garnishment before judgment is not permissible, except by compliance with…”
Ceres Fertilizer, Inc. v. Beekman, 290 N.W.2d 199 (Neb. 1980).
· cites it 2× “The only errors assigned by the defendant pertinent to a decision in this matter are that prior to judgment, the *769 plaintiff, a nonresident corporation, had its authority to do business in the state revoked and therefore could not maintain the action upon which judgment was…”
Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. v. Viele, 110 F. Supp. 889 (D. Neb. 1953).
“At the same time garnishment proceedings were instituted in the same state court against the insurance companies, plaintiffs herein, pursuant to Sections 25-1001 and 25-1010 et seq., R.R.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1001(8) — 1 case
Andrews v. Schram, 562 N.W.2d 50 (Neb. 1997).
“Spahn in their individual capacities under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1001 et seq. (Reissue 1995).”
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.