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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1912.01 (2026)

Appellate review; motion for new trial; when required

✓ 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

(1) A motion for a new trial shall not be a prerequisite to obtaining appellate review of any issue upon which the ruling of the trial court appears in the record.

(2) When an action has been tried before a jury a motion for a new trial shall not be a prerequisite to obtaining appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence, but a motion for a new trial shall be a prerequisite to obtaining appellate review of the issue of inadequate or excessive damages.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2024 · leading case: 132 Ventures v. Active Spine Physical Therapy, 13 N.W.3d 441 (Neb. 2024).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
132 Ventures v. Active Spine Physical Therapy, 13 N.W.3d 441 (Neb. 2024). · cites it 5× “2d 868 (1988); Caro, Inc. v. Roby, 215 Neb. 897 , 342 N.W.2d 182 (1983).”
Pierce v. Landmark Mgmt. Grp., 880 N.W.2d 885 (Neb. 2016). · cites it 3× “12 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1912.01 (2) (Reissue 2008) (stating that “[w]hen an action has been tried before a jury .”
In re Interest of BMH, 446 N.W.2d 222 (Neb. 1989). · cites it 3× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1912.01 (1) (Reissue 1985) states: “A motion for a new trial shall not be a prerequisite to obtaining appellate review of any issue upon which the ruling of the trial court appears in the record.”
State v. Thompson, 507 N.W.2d 253 (Neb. 1993). · cites it 2× “See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1912.01 (2) (Reissue 1989).”
Cave v. Reiser, 684 N.W.2d 580 (Neb. 2004). · cites it 2× “Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1912.01 (1) (Reissue 1995), “[a] motion for a new trial shall not be a prerequisite to obtaining appellate review of any issue upon which the ruling of the trial court appears in the record.”
Jarrett v. Eichler, 506 N.W.2d 682 (Neb. 1993). · cites it 2× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1912.01 (Reissue 1989) (a motion for new trial is generally not a prerequisite for appellate review).”
Manske v. Manske, 518 N.W.2d 144 (Neb. 1994). · cites it 3× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1912.01 (1) (Reissue 1989) provides: “A motion for a new trial shall not be a prerequisite to obtaining appellate review of any issue upon which the ruling of the trial court appears on the record.”
First Nat. Bank North Platte v. Cardenas, 909 N.W.2d 79 (Neb. 2018). · cites it 3× “(b) Application Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1912.01 (2) (Reissue 2016) provides: When an action has been tried before a jury a motion for a new trial shall not be a prerequisite to obtaining appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence, but a motion for a new trial shall be a…”
State v. McCormick, 518 N.W.2d 133 (Neb. 1994). · cites it 2× “See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1912.01 (Reissue 1989) (generally, motions for new trial *276 are not a prerequisite to perfecting an appeal).”
Prof'l Recruiters, Inc. v. Oliver, 456 N.W.2d 103 (Neb. 1990). · cites it 2× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1912.01 (1) (Reissue 1989) was enacted subsequent to the cases relied upon by defendants.”
Buffalo Cnty. v. Kizzier, 548 N.W.2d 757 (Neb. 1996). · cites it 2× “However, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1912.01 (Reissue 1995) has superseded Gates by providing that, except in a limited number of circumstances, “[a] motion for a new trial shall not be a prerequisite to obtaining appellate review of any issue upon which the ruling of the trial court…”
State v. Muratella, 991 N.W.2d 25 (Neb. 2023). · cites it 2× “W.2d 154 (1985); State v. Potter, 220 Neb.”
Show all 22 citing cases →
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1912.01(1): 4 cases
In re Interest of BMH, 446 N.W.2d 222 (Neb. 1989). “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1912.01 (1) (Reissue 1985) states: “A motion for a new trial shall not be a prerequisite to obtaining appellate review of any issue upon which the ruling of the trial court appears in the record.”
Manske v. Manske, 518 N.W.2d 144 (Neb. 1994). “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1912.01 (1) (Reissue 1989) provides: “A motion for a new trial shall not be a prerequisite to obtaining appellate review of any issue upon which the ruling of the trial court appears on the record.”
State v. Branch, 371 N.W.2d 740 (Neb. 1985).
Metrejean v. Gunter, 481 N.W.2d 176 (Neb. 1992).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1912.01(2): 3 cases
Pierce v. Landmark Mgmt. Grp., 880 N.W.2d 885 (Neb. 2016). “12 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1912.01 (2) (Reissue 2008) (stating that “[w]hen an action has been tried before a jury .”
First Nat. Bank North Platte v. Cardenas, 909 N.W.2d 79 (Neb. 2018). “(b) Application Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1912.01 (2) (Reissue 2016) provides: When an action has been tried before a jury a motion for a new trial shall not be a prerequisite to obtaining appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence, but a motion for a new trial shall be a…”
First Nat. Bank North Platte v. Cardenas, 299 Neb. 497 (Neb. 2018).
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.