Neb. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 25
Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1149 (2026)

Issues; order in which tried; time of hearing

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

The trial of an issue of fact and the assessment of damages in any case shall be in the order in which they are placed on the trial docket, unless by consent of parties or the order of the court they are continued, placed at the heel of the trial docket, or temporarily postponed. The time of hearing all other cases shall be in the order in which they are placed on the trial docket, unless the court shall otherwise direct. The court may in its discretion hear at any time a motion, may by rule prescribe the time for hearing motions, and may provide for dismissing actions without prejudice for want of prosecution.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1954–2023 · leading case: Schaeffer v. Hunter, 263 N.W.2d 102 (Neb. 1978).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Schaeffer v. Hunter, 263 N.W.2d 102 (Neb. 1978). · cites it 2× “Section 25-1149, R. R. S. 1943, authorizes the District Court to provide for dismissing actions without prejudice for want of prosecution.”
A Hirsh, Inc. v. Nat'l Hair Co., 315 N.W.2d 236 (Neb. 1982). · cites it 2× “The plaintiff then moved to vacate the order of dismissal, which motion was granted on May 21, 1980, over the objection of the defendants.”
Sioux Sun Talkington v. Womens Servs., P.C., 588 N.W.2d 790 (Neb. 1999). · cites it 2× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1149 (Reissue 1995).”
Schultz v. State, 992 N.W.2d 779 (Neb. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “The district court also has the discretionary power to dismiss a case with- out prejudice for want of prosecution under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1149 (Cum. Supp. 2022).”
Fanning v. Richards, 227 N.W.2d 595 (Neb. 1975). “See § 25-1149, R. R. S. 1943. These dismissal procedures entail no supervision of intermediate stages of case progress and no sanctions are *433 imposed until the “no progress” time interval is exceeded.”
Sioux Sun Talkington v. Womens Servs., P.C., 583 N.W.2d 68 (Neb. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1149 (Reissue 1995).”
Brown v. Lincoln, 61 N.W.2d 836 (Neb. 1954). “§ 25-1149, R. R. S. 1943. It is within the inherent power of' the court to do so in any event.”
State ex rel. Johnson v. Bd. of Supervisors, 280 N.W.2d 636 (Neb. 1979). · cites it 2× “’ ” The only other evidence was an affidavit of an attorney for Blakely *766 Township, designated as an intervenor, and it is not relevant to this appeal. The law is clear that the District Court has discretionary power to dismiss a case for want of prosecution.”
WBE Co. v. State (Neb. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1149 (Reissue 2008), a district court has discretionary power to dismiss a case without prejudice for want of prosecution.”
Anderson v. Keller (Neb. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “See, also, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1149 (Cum. Supp. 2018).”
Fritzen v. Fritzen (Neb. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “See, also, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1149 (Cum. Supp. 2018) (trial court “may provide for dismissing actions without prejudice for want of prosecution”).”
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.