Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2001 (2026)

District court; power to vacate or modify judgments or orders

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) The inherent power of a district court to vacate or modify its judgments or orders during term may also be exercised after the end of the term, upon the same grounds, upon a motion filed within six months after the entry of the judgment or order.

(2) The power of a district court under its equity jurisdiction to set aside a judgment or an order as an equitable remedy is not limited by this section.

(3) Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders, or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court by an order nunc pro tunc at any time on the court's initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders. During the pendency of an appeal, such mistakes may be so corrected before the case is submitted for decision in the appellate court, and thereafter while the appeal is pending may be so corrected with leave of the appellate court.

(4) A district court may vacate or modify its own judgments or orders after the term at which such judgments or orders were made (a) for mistake, neglect, or omission of the clerk, or irregularity in obtaining a judgment or order; (b) for fraud practiced by the successful party in obtaining the judgment or order; (c) for newly discovered material evidence which could neither have been discovered with reasonable diligence before trial nor have been discovered with reasonable diligence in time to move for a new trial; (d) for erroneous proceedings against an infant or person of unsound mind if the condition of such defendant does not appear in the record of the proceedings; (e) for the death of one of the parties before the judgment in the action; (f) for unavoidable casualty or misfortune, preventing the party from prosecuting or defending; and (g) for taking judgments upon warrants of attorney for more than was due to the plaintiff when the defendant was not summoned or otherwise legally notified of the time and place of taking such judgment.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 181 cases (31 in the last 5 years), 1945–2026 · leading case: Eicher v. Mid Am. Fin. Invest. Corp., 748 N.W.2d 1 (Neb. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Eicher v. Mid Am. Fin. Invest. Corp., 748 N.W.2d 1 (Neb. 2008). · cites it 19× “However, on January 26, 2007, the district court issued an order nunc pro tunc, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2001 (3) (Cum. Supp.”

McEwen v. Nebraska State Coll. Sys., 303 Neb. 552 (Neb. 2019). · cites it 4× “The alternative motion stated that it was based on Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2001 (Reissue 2016).”

Hartman v. Hartman, 657 N.W.2d 646 (Neb. 2003). · cites it 14× “On August 23, 2001, Denise, now represented by different counsel, filed an application to vacate the decree of dissolution pursuant to “Neb. Rev. Stat. §25-2001 (3)&(7), or pursuant to the independent equity powers of this Court.”

In re Interest of Luz P., 295 Neb. 814 (Neb. 2017). · cites it 5× “Section 25-2001(3) allows courts to issue nunc pro tunc orders: Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders, or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court by an order nunc pro tunc at any time on the court’s…”

State v. Bartel, 308 Neb. 169 (Neb. 2021). · cites it 14× “” 39 According to Bartel, the district court in 2017 had authority under § 25-2001(4) to ren- der its protection order void ab initio because “the protection order was obtained by [M.”

Emry v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 334 N.W.2d 786 (Neb. 1983). · cites it 21× “Emry, appellee in this appeal, filed a petition under the provisions of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2001 (Reissue 1979) to vacate an order of dismissal entered on May 2, 1980, at a prior term of court, because of want of prosecution.”

Hornig v. Martel Lift Sys., Inc., 606 N.W.2d 764 (Neb. 2000). · cites it 12× “(b) Adequate Remedy at Law Next, appellants argue that the district court erred when it granted equitable relief because the Hornigs had an adequate remedy at law, which they elected not to invoke.”

In Re Est. of West, 415 N.W.2d 769 (Neb. 1987). · cites it 16× “On petition by the Tax Commissioner of the State of Nebraska, and pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2001 (4) (Reissue 1985), the county court for Knox County set aside its inheritance tax order entered in the probate proceedings for the estate of Loyd West, deceased.”

Nye v. Fire Grp. P'ship, 642 N.W.2d 149 (Neb. 2002). · cites it 8× “This is an appeal from a district court’s order denying a motion to vacate or modify a summary judgment under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2001 (4) (Cum. Supp.”

State v. Uhing, 301 Neb. 768 (Neb. 2018). · cites it 2× “5 In support of this argument, Uhing contends, for the first time on appeal, that his motion to reconsider was brought under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2001 (Reissue 2016).”

State v. Moran, 677 N.W.2d 190 (Neb. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 8× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2001 (3) (Cum. Supp.”

McCarson v. McCarson, 641 N.W.2d 62 (Neb. 2002). · cites it 10× “Section 25-2001 states that “[a] district court shall have power to vacate or modify its own judgments or orders after the term at which such judgments or orders were made .”

Show all 181 citing cases →

— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2001(1) — 18 cases

State v. Hausmann, 765 N.W.2d 219 (Neb. 2009).

In re Interest of Luz P., 295 Neb. 814 (Neb. 2017). “Section 25-2001(3) allows courts to issue nunc pro tunc orders: Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders, or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court by an order nunc pro tunc at any time on the court’s…”

Hawk v. Hawk, 319 Neb. 120 (Neb. 2025).

State v. Bartel, 308 Neb. 169 (Neb. 2021). “” 39 According to Bartel, the district court in 2017 had authority under § 25-2001(4) to ren- der its protection order void ab initio because “the protection order was obtained by [M.”

Miller v. Steichen, 682 N.W.2d 702 (Neb. 2004).

— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2001(2) — 9 cases

In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Maronica B., 992 N.W.2d 457 (Neb. 2023).

Hartman v. Hartman, 657 N.W.2d 646 (Neb. 2003). “On August 23, 2001, Denise, now represented by different counsel, filed an application to vacate the decree of dissolution pursuant to “Neb. Rev. Stat. §25-2001 (3)&(7), or pursuant to the independent equity powers of this Court.”

Jaksha v. Jaksha, 319 Neb. 308 (Neb. 2025).

State v. Haynes (Neb. Ct. App. 2014).

Vandelay Investments v. Brennan (Neb. Ct. App. 2016).

— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2001(3) — 17 cases

Eicher v. Mid Am. Fin. Invest. Corp., 748 N.W.2d 1 (Neb. 2008). “However, on January 26, 2007, the district court issued an order nunc pro tunc, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2001 (3) (Cum. Supp.”

State v. Moran, 677 N.W.2d 190 (Neb. Ct. App. 2004). “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2001 (3) (Cum. Supp.”

Roemer v. Maly, 539 N.W.2d 40 (Neb. 1995).

State v. Sims, 761 N.W.2d 527 (Neb. 2009).

— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2001(4) — 21 cases

In Re Est. of West, 415 N.W.2d 769 (Neb. 1987). “On petition by the Tax Commissioner of the State of Nebraska, and pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2001 (4) (Reissue 1985), the county court for Knox County set aside its inheritance tax order entered in the probate proceedings for the estate of Loyd West, deceased.”

McCarson v. McCarson, 641 N.W.2d 62 (Neb. 2002). “Section 25-2001 states that “[a] district court shall have power to vacate or modify its own judgments or orders after the term at which such judgments or orders were made .”

Nye v. Fire Grp. P'ship, 642 N.W.2d 149 (Neb. 2002). “This is an appeal from a district court’s order denying a motion to vacate or modify a summary judgment under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2001 (4) (Cum. Supp.”

— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2001(4)(a) — 6 cases

Mann v. Mann, 29 Neb. Ct. App. 548 (Neb. Ct. App. 2021).

Bevard v. Kelly, 739 N.W.2d 243 (Neb. Ct. App. 2007).

Jaksha v. Jaksha, 319 Neb. 308 (Neb. 2025).

Prairie Brand Seeds v. Russell (Neb. Ct. App. 2019).

— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2001(4)(b) — 6 cases

Nielsen v. Nielsen, 749 N.W.2d 485 (Neb. 2008).

Zitterkopf v. Zitterkopf (Neb. Ct. App. 2023).

George v. George (Neb. Ct. App. 2023).

Senteney v. Sabatka-Rine (D. Neb. 2022).

Breit v. Breit (Neb. Ct. App. 2014).

— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2001(4)(c) — 2 cases

Zitterkopf v. Zitterkopf (Neb. Ct. App. 2023).

State on behalf of B.M. v. Brian F. (Neb. 2014).

— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2001(4)(d) — 1 case

Vandelay Investments v. Brennan (Neb. Ct. App. 2016).

— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2001(4)(f) — 2 cases

Woodcock v. Navarrete-James, 26 Neb. Ct. App. 809 (Neb. Ct. App. 2019).

Senteney v. Sabatka-Rine (D. Neb. 2022).

— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2001(7) — 1 case

Emry v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 334 N.W.2d 786 (Neb. 1983). “Emry, appellee in this appeal, filed a petition under the provisions of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2001 (Reissue 1979) to vacate an order of dismissal entered on May 2, 1980, at a prior term of court, because of 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.