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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1315.01 (2026)

Motion for directed verdict; joinder; effect; requisites

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A party who moves for a directed verdict at the close of the evidence offered by an opponent may offer evidence in the event that the motion is not granted, without having reserved the right to do so and to the same extent as if the motion had not been made. A motion for a directed verdict which is not granted is not a waiver of trial by jury even though all parties to the action have moved for directed verdicts. A motion for a directed verdict shall state the specific grounds therefor.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1949–2024 · leading case: In re Coons'Est., 48 N.W.2d 778 (Neb. 1951).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Coons'Est., 48 N.W.2d 778 (Neb. 1951). · cites it 12× “We deem it necessary to discuss the effect of section 25-1315.01, R.R.S.1943, to *783 avoid the possibility of error upon a retrial of this case.”
Haag v. Bongers, 589 N.W.2d 318 (Neb. 1999). · cites it 3× “See, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1315.01 (Reissue 1995); Hill v.”
132 Ventures v. Active Spine Physical Therapy, 13 N.W.3d 441 (Neb. 2024). · cites it 3× “Moreover, Active Spine and the Muchowiczes could have, but did not, raise in their alternative motion for new trial or JNOV the question of liability for costs related to securing the new tenancy, the alleged COVID-19 abatement, and the termination of the tenancy under the terms…”
Anderson v. Babbe, 933 N.W.2d 813 (Neb. 2019). · cites it 2× “BABBE determined by the evidence on the record at that point.”
Hill v. City of Lincoln, 541 N.W.2d 655 (Neb. 1996). · cites it 2× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1315.01 (Reissue 1989).”
In re Est. of Kinsey, 40 N.W.2d 526 (Neb. 1949). · cites it 4× “Solution of the first assignment depends upon the application of sections 25-1315.01 to 25-1315.03, R. R. S.”
Segebart ex rel. Segebart v. Gregory, 55 N.W.2d 678 (Neb. 1952). · cites it 4× “This is violative of the provision of section 25-1315.01, R. R. S. 1943, as follows: “* * * A motion for a directed verdict shall state the specific grounds therefor.”
B. E. Implement Co. v. Valley Farm, Inc., 343 N.W.2d 892 (Neb. 1984). · cites it 2× “The plaintiff assigns as errors generally the court’s overruling of its motion and the granting of the defendant’s; the exclusion from evidence of the security agreement because of lack of foundation; and the placing of the burden of proof on the plaintiff to establish that the…”
Schmid v. Clarke, Inc., 515 N.W.2d 665 (Neb. 1994). · cites it 2× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1315.01 (Reissue 1989).”
Lockhart v. Cont'l Cheese, Inc., 278 N.W.2d 604 (Neb. 1979). “See, Simmons, “Directed Verdicts Under Federal Civil Procedure Rule 50 and Under Sections 25-1315.01 to 25-1315.03 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes”, 30 Neb.”
Krepcik v. Interstate Transit Lines, 38 N.W.2d 533 (Neb. 1949). “267; § 25-1315.01, R. S. Supp., 1947. It is logical to conclude that the lawmakers entertained the view that a motion for a directed verdict stating the specific grounds therefor, and a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, supplied the primary…”
Swink v. Smith, 113 N.W.2d 515 (Neb. 1962). · cites it 2× “Defendant complains of the insufficiency of the motion for a directed verdict in that it did not specify the grounds therefor as required by section 25-1315.01, R. R. S. 1943. The motion for a directed verdict in favor of plaintiff for the amount prayed was based upon…”
Show all 15 citing cases →
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.