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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1334 (2026)

Form of affidavits; further testimony

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

Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein. Sworn or certified copies of all papers or parts thereof referred to in an affidavit shall be attached thereto or served therewith. The court may permit affidavits to be supplemented or opposed by depositions or by further affidavits.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1957–2023 · leading case: Boyle v. Welsh, 589 N.W.2d 118 (Neb. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Boyle v. Welsh, 589 N.W.2d 118 (Neb. 1999). · cites it 6× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1334 (Reissue 1995), which prescribes the form of affidavits offered in support of summary judgment, states, “Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall…”
Agri Affiliates, Inc. v. Bones, 660 N.W.2d 168 (Neb. 2003). · cites it 4× “” The Boneses contend that Marland’s affidavit violated Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1334 (Reissue 1995) in that it was not based upon personal knowledge and included both hearsay and legal conclusions.”
White v. Ardan, Inc., 430 N.W.2d 27 (Neb. 1988). · cites it 3× “The rule in Nebraska regarding such affidavits requires that “[supporting and opposing affidavits [1] shall be made on personal knowledge, [2] shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and [3] shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify…”
In Re Est. of Villwok, 413 N.W.2d 921 (Neb. 1987). · cites it 3× “In connection with summary judgments, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1334 (Reissue 1985) requires that “[supporting and opposing affidavits [1] shall be made on personal knowledge, [2] shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and [3] shall show affirmatively that the…”
Vowers & Sons, Inc. v. Strasheim, 576 N.W.2d 817 (Neb. 1998). · cites it 2× “We do not consider the content of the affidavit because it is undated, unsworn, and unsigned and therefore does not comply with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1334 (Reissue 1995).”
Whalen v. U S West Commc'ns, Inc., 570 N.W.2d 531 (Neb. 1997). · cites it 2× “Under the terms of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1334 (Reissue 1995), affidavits offered for the truth of a particular fact (1) shall be made on personal knowledge, (2) shall set forth such facts as would be admissible into evidence, and (3) shall show affirmatively that the affiant is…”
Young v. First United Bank of Bellevue, 516 N.W.2d 256 (Neb. 1994). · cites it 4× “2d 27, 33 (1988) (quoting Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-1334 (Reissue 1989)). " `[S]tatements in affidavits as to opinion, belief, or conclusions of law are of no effect.”
State Ex Rel. Wagner v. Gilbane Bldg. Co., 757 N.W.2d 194 (Neb. 2008). · cites it 2× “[33] Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-1334 (Reissue 1995). [34] Neb.”
Chism v. Campbell, 553 N.W.2d 741 (Neb. 1996). · cites it 4× “Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-1334 (Reissue 1995); Young v.”
Hoff v. Ajlouny, 703 N.W.2d 645 (Neb. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 5× “*29 The correct statutes for analysis are Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-1334 and 27-1005 (Reissue 1995).”
Molt v. Lindsay Mfg. Co., 532 N.W.2d 11 (Neb. 1995). · cites it 2× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1334 (Reissue 1989) requires that supporting and opposing affidavits must set forth such facts as would be admissible into evidence and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein.”
Bohling v. Bohling, 309 Neb. 625 (Neb. 2021). · cites it 2× “Robert does not assign error to the district court’s eviden- tiary rulings, nor does he argue that the court’s characteriza- tion of the statements as “unsupported opinions” was errone- ous. Instead, he summarily argues that the district court erred when it “failed to consider”…”
Show all 36 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.