(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, 936 N.W.2d 924 (Neb. 2020).
Saylor v. State, 936 N.W.2d 924 (Neb. 2020).
· cites it 11× “01 (Reissue 2016) applies to an action under the State Tort Claims Act (STCA).1 We conclude it does not. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court dismissing this STCA action as time barred.”
Fidler v. Life Care Centers of Am., 919 N.W.2d 903 (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., 958 N.W.2d 703 (Neb. 2021).
· cites it 8× “Stat. § 25-201.01 (Reissue 2016). We agree that § 1367(d) tolled the statute of limitations on Ryan’s breach of contract claim and that as a result, the claim was timely filed.”
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, 970 N.W.2d 94 (Neb. 2022).
· cites it 2× “4 [3] When reviewing questions of law, an appellate court resolves the questions independently of the lower court’s conclusions.”
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, 970 N.W.2d 94 (Neb. 2022).
· cites it 2× “4 [3] When reviewing questions of law, an appellate court resolves the questions independently of the lower court’s conclusions.”
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, No. 4:21-cv-03187 (D. Neb. Mar. 2, 2022).
· cites it 2× “§ 25-201.01 . See Morgan Distrib. Co., 868 F.”
David Eggleton v. Plasser & Theurer, No. 06-2641 (8th Cir. July 25, 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., 958 N.W.2d 703 (Neb. 2021).
“Stat. § 25-201.01 (Reissue 2016). We agree that § 1367(d) tolled the statute of limitations on Ryan’s breach of contract claim and that as a result, the claim was timely filed.”
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.