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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.02 (2026)

Amendment of pleading; effect

✓ 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) An amendment of a pleading that does not change the party or the name of the party against whom the claim is asserted relates back to the date of the original pleading if the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading.

(2) If the amendment changes the party or the name of the party against whom a claim is asserted, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading if (a) the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, and (b) within the period provided for commencing an action the party against whom the claim is asserted by the amended pleading (i) received notice of the action such that the party will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits and (ii) knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against the party.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 2006–2025 · leading case: Kelly v. Saint Francis Med. Ctr., 889 N.W.2d 613 (Neb. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kelly v. Saint Francis Med. Ctr., 889 N.W.2d 613 (Neb. 2017). · cites it 10× “”35 However, since § 25-852 has been repealed, it is more instructive to look at recent cases that discuss the current pleading amendment statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.02 (Reissue 2016).”
Reid v. Evans, 733 N.W.2d 186 (Neb. 2007). · cites it 30× “Reid claimed her proposed amendment was proper because it would relate back to the original filing date under Nebraska's relation-back statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.02 (Cum. Supp. 2006).”
Gibbs Cattle Co. v. Bixler, 831 N.W.2d 696 (Neb. 2013). · cites it 16× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.02 (2) (Reissue 2008) applies only to an amendment that “changes the party or the name of the party” and that refers to a substitution, rather than to an addition, of parties.”
Kotlarz v. Olson Bros., 740 N.W.2d 807 (Neb. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 5× “" The joint venture, PMC, did not file an answer or a cross-claim until September 2004, when, with counsel other than Gibbons, PMC alleged that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court's decision did not address this defense, which we see as an issue…”
Marksmeier v. McGregor Corp., 722 N.W.2d 65 (Neb. 2006). · cites it 3× “The court determined that pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.02 (2) (Cum. Supp.”
Davis v. Ridder, 963 N.W.2d 23 (Neb. 2021). · cites it 24× “The district court determined that Ridder was entitled to summary judgment because Davis failed to submit evidence that he negligently maintained the vehicle.”
Johnson v. Antoniutti, 16 N.W.3d 864 (Neb. 2025). · cites it 10× “Reasoning that the original complaint was a legal nullity because Zurini was deceased when it was filed, the court concluded that on the date the order of revivor and substitution was entered, there was no viable action pending that was subject to either revivor or substitution.”
Saylor v. State, 936 N.W.2d 924 (Neb. 2020). · cites it 3× “02 (Reissue 2016) is not one of the applicable statutes listed in § 81-8,227(5), it cannot be applied to extend the time period for bringing an action under the State Tort Claims Act.”
State v. Liner, 917 N.W.2d 194 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 5× “02 provides that an amendment of a pleading that does not change the party or the name of the party against whom the claim is asserted relates back to the date of the original pleading if the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct,…”
Bolden v. Bd. of Regents, 973 N.W.2d 373 (Neb. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 4× “CONCLUSION In sum, we hold the district court erred in dismissing Appellants’ complaint for failing to properly serve Gardner, but properly dismissed Appellants’ first amended complaint because that claim, filed against Gardner, in her capacity as an employee of UNMC, and UNMC,…”
Sparks v. Mach, 982 N.W.2d 834 (Neb. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 7× “02 when the original complaint was - 471 - Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets 31 Nebraska Appellate Reports SPARKS V. MACH a nullity. See, Kelly v.”
Fisher v. Heirs & Devisees of T.D. Lovercheck, 291 Neb. 9 (2015). · cites it 12× “” After deciding that the general relation-back statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.02 (Reissue 2008), does not apply to amendments that add plaintiffs, the court turned to § 25-301, the real party in interest statute.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.02(1): 6 cases
Sparks v. Mach, 993 N.W.2d 119 (Neb. 2023).
State v. Buttercase, No. A-15-987 (Neb. Ct. App. Dec. 5, 2017).
Hohenstein v. Hohenstein, No. A-22-108, 2023 WL 5217713 (Neb. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2023).
Mehner v. Doe, No. A-23-981 (Neb. Ct. App. Oct. 8, 2024).
Carter v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, No. A-22-227 (Neb. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2023).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.02(2): 10 cases
Gibbs Cattle Co. v. Bixler, 831 N.W.2d 696 (Neb. 2013). “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.02 (2) (Reissue 2008) applies only to an amendment that “changes the party or the name of the party” and that refers to a substitution, rather than to an addition, of parties.”
Kelly v. Saint Francis Med. Ctr., 889 N.W.2d 613 (Neb. 2017). “”35 However, since § 25-852 has been repealed, it is more instructive to look at recent cases that discuss the current pleading amendment statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.02 (Reissue 2016).”
Davis v. Ridder, 963 N.W.2d 23 (Neb. 2021). “The district court determined that Ridder was entitled to summary judgment because Davis failed to submit evidence that he negligently maintained the vehicle.”
Marksmeier v. McGregor Corp., 722 N.W.2d 65 (Neb. 2006). “The court determined that pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.02 (2) (Cum. Supp.”
Kotlarz v. Olson Bros., 740 N.W.2d 807 (Neb. Ct. App. 2007). “" The joint venture, PMC, did not file an answer or a cross-claim until September 2004, when, with counsel other than Gibbons, PMC alleged that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court's decision did not address this defense, which we see as an issue…”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.02(2)(b): 4 cases
Reid v. Evans, 733 N.W.2d 186 (Neb. 2007). “Reid claimed her proposed amendment was proper because it would relate back to the original filing date under Nebraska's relation-back statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.02 (Cum. Supp. 2006).”
Davis v. Ridder, 963 N.W.2d 23 (Neb. 2021). “The district court determined that Ridder was entitled to summary judgment because Davis failed to submit evidence that he negligently maintained the vehicle.”
Mehner v. Doe, No. A-23-981 (Neb. Ct. App. Oct. 8, 2024).
Correa v. Est. of Haskell, No. S-13-749 (Neb. July 25, 2014).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.02(2)(b)(ii): 2 cases
Davis v. Ridder, 963 N.W.2d 23 (Neb. 2021). “The district court determined that Ridder was entitled to summary judgment because Davis failed to submit evidence that he negligently maintained the vehicle.”
Mehner v. Doe, No. A-23-981 (Neb. Ct. App. Oct. 8, 2024).
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.