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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1333 (2026)

Case not fully adjudicated on motion

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

If on motion under sections 25-1330 to 25-1336 judgment is not rendered upon the whole case or for all the relief asked and a trial is necessary, the court at the hearing of the motion, by examining the pleadings and the evidence before it and by interrogating counsel, shall if practicable ascertain what material facts exist without substantial controversy and what material facts are actually and in good faith controverted. It shall thereupon make an order specifying the facts that appear without substantial controversy, including the extent to which the amount of damages or other relief is not in controversy, and directing such further proceedings in the action as are just. Upon the trial of the action the facts so specified shall be deemed established, and the trial shall be conducted accordingly.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1960–2022 · leading case: Burroughs Corp. v. James E. Simon Constr. Co., 220 N.W.2d 225 (Neb. 1974).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Burroughs Corp. v. James E. Simon Constr. Co., 220 N.W.2d 225 (Neb. 1974). · cites it 8× “The general rule eliminating appeals from interlocutory orders, has been given specific application to the summary judgment procedure in the enactment, in 1951, of section 25-1333, R.R.S.1943, which provides in part: "If on motion under sections 25-1330 to 25-1336 judgment is…”
Newman v. Hinky Dinky Omaha-Lincoln, Inc., 427 N.W.2d 50 (Neb. 1988). · cites it 2× “See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1333 (Reissue 1985) (summary judgment; case not fully adjudicated on motion).”
Otteman v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co., 105 N.W.2d 583 (Neb. 1960). · cites it 2× “1943, contains language from which it appears that the Legislature in the enactment of the summary judgment act attempted to and at least inferentially did distinguish the summary judgment process from a trial. This section is as follows: “If on motion under sections 25-1330 to…”
Randall v. Erdman, 231 N.W.2d 689 (Neb. 1975). · cites it 2× “1943, provides that the court: “* * * shall if practicable ascertain what material facts exist without substantial controversy * * *” and further provides: “It shall thereupon make an order specifying the facts that appear without substantial controversy, including the extent to…”
Voyles by & Through Rachau v. Debrown Leasing, Inc., 383 N.W.2d 36 (Neb. 1986). “Disposition by partial summary judgment is found in § 25-1333: If on motion under sections 25-1330 to 25-1336 judgment is not rendered upon the whole case or for all the relief asked and atrial is necessary, the court at the hearing of the motion, by examining the pleadings and…”
Hart Ex Rel. Hart v. Ronspies, 146 N.W.2d 795 (Neb. 1966). “See, § 25-1333, R. R. S. 1943; Maybury v. City of Seattle, 53 Wash.”
One Pac. Place, Ltd. v. H.T.I. Corp., 569 N.W.2d 251 (Neb. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “However, for us to merely decrease the amount of the judgment would either (1) deprive the parties of the opportunity to plead and prove the rights which they argue in their briefs they are entitled to or (2) result in a partial summary judgment by this court, which would grant…”
Glen Park Terrace 1 Homeowners Ass'n v. M. Timm, Inc., 430 N.W.2d 40 (Neb. 1988). · cites it 3× “This ruling by this court does not mean that the trial court may not, under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1333 (Reissue 1985), “ascertain what material facts exist without substantial controversy” and grant such further relief as set out in § 25-1333.”
Mai v. Lecher (Neb. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1333 (Reissue 2016).”
Hurbenca v. Nebraska Dep't of Corr. Servs., 773 N.W.2d 402 (Neb. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “stated, that the district court erred in (1) making its findings of fact, (2) determining that the appellees have not violated his statutory rights regarding wage withholding, (3) finding that § 83-183 does not impose an 8-hour-workday requirement before statutory deductions may…”
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.