(1) If an action is commenced within the time prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations but the plaintiff fails in the action for a reason other than a reason specified in subsection (2) of this section and the applicable statute of limitations would prevent the plaintiff from commencing a new action, the plaintiff, or his or her representatives if the plaintiff has died and the cause of action survived, may commence a new action within the period specified in subsection (3) of this section.
(2) A new action may not be commenced in accordance with subsection (1) of this section when the original action failed (a) on the merits of the action, (b) as a result of voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff for a reason other than loss of diversity jurisdiction in a federal court, (c) as a result of the plaintiff's failure to serve a defendant within the time prescribed in section 25-217, or (d) as a result of any other inaction on the part of the plaintiff where the burden of initiating an action was on the plaintiff.
(3) A new action may be commenced in accordance with subsection (1) of this section within a period equal to the lesser of (a) six months after the failure of the action or (b) a period after the failure of the action equal to the period of the applicable statute of limitations of the original action.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 2006–2022 · leading case:
Saylor v. State, 304 Neb. 779 (Neb. 2020).
Saylor v. State, 304 Neb. 779 (Neb. 2020).
· cites it 11× “The central issue in this appeal is whether the savings clause of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.01 (Reissue 2016) applies to an action under the State Tort Claims Act (STCA).”
Fidler v. Life Care Centers of Am., 301 Neb. 724 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 3× “ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Life Care Centers claims, restated, that (1) the district court erred when it applied the local rules regarding reinstatement of cases instead of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.01 (Reissue 2016) to decide whether to reinstate the case and (2) even if the local…”
Ryan v. Streck, Inc., 309 Neb. 98 (Neb. 2021).
· cites it 8× “§ 1367 (d) (2018) or by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.01 (Reissue 2016).”
Brodine v. Blue Cross Blue Shield, 724 N.W.2d 321 (Neb. 2006).
· cites it 10× “Blue Cross argues that Brodine was not prevented from bringing a timely action in state court while the federal lawsuit was pending and that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.01 (Cum. Supp. 2004) did not apply.”
In re Est. of Severson, 310 Neb. 982 (Neb. 2022).
· cites it 2× “982 allegations that the informal probate would be opened for purposes limited to recovering liability insurance, (4) finding that not allowing the application would be contrary to law and create an “absurd result,” and (5) finding that the savings clause of Neb. Rev. Stat. §…”
Brodine v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Ne, 724 N.W.2d 321 (Neb. 2006).
· cites it 10× “Blue Cross argues that Brodine was not prevented from bringing a timely action in state court while the federal lawsuit was pending and that Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-201.01 (Cum.Supp.2004) did not apply.”
Zitterkopf v. Maldonado, 727 N.W.2d 696 (Neb. 2007).
· cites it 8× “After their motion to vacate the order of dismissal was overruled, the Zitterkopfs filed a second case for the same cause of action against the same defendants under the savings clause statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.01 (Cum. Supp. 2006).”
In re Est. of Severson, 310 Neb. 982 (Neb. 2022).
· cites it 2× “982 allegations that the informal probate would be opened for purposes limited to recovering liability insurance, (4) finding that not allowing the application would be contrary to law and create an “absurd result,” and (5) finding that the savings clause of Neb. Rev. Stat. §…”
Fidler v. Life Care Centers of Am., 301 Neb. 724 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 3× “ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Life Care Centers claims, restated, that (1) the district court erred when it applied the local rules regarding reinstatement of cases instead of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.01 (Reissue 2016) to decide whether to reinstate the case and (2) even if the local…”
Zierke v. Molsen (D. Neb. 2022).
· cites it 2× “§ 25-201.01 . See Morgan Distrib. Co., 868 F.”
David Eggleton v. Plasser & Theurer (8th Cir. 2007).
“” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.01 (2). Therefore, the case would have become untimely had Eggleton originally brought it in Nebraska and followed the same course of litigation that he did in Virginia.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.01(2) — 4 cases
Ryan v. Streck, Inc., 309 Neb. 98 (Neb. 2021).
“§ 1367 (d) (2018) or by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.01 (Reissue 2016).”
Brodine v. Blue Cross Blue Shield, 724 N.W.2d 321 (Neb. 2006).
“Blue Cross argues that Brodine was not prevented from bringing a timely action in state court while the federal lawsuit was pending and that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.01 (Cum. Supp. 2004) did not apply.”
Brodine v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Ne, 724 N.W.2d 321 (Neb. 2006).
“Blue Cross argues that Brodine was not prevented from bringing a timely action in state court while the federal lawsuit was pending and that Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-201.01 (Cum.Supp.2004) did not apply.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.01(2)(d) — 1 case
Zitterkopf v. Maldonado, 727 N.W.2d 696 (Neb. 2007).
“After their motion to vacate the order of dismissal was overruled, the Zitterkopfs filed a second case for the same cause of action against the same defendants under the savings clause statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.01 (Cum. Supp. 2006).”
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.