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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.02 (2026)

Amendment of pleading; effect

✓ current as of July 2026
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 · cites it 10× “”35 However, since § 25-852 has been repealed, it is more instructive to look at recent cases that discuss the current pleading amendment statute, Neb.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., Inc., 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, 309 Neb. 865 (Neb. 2021). · cites it 24× “The district court determined that Limpach was entitled to summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds, because the evidence would not permit a finding that Davis’ claim against him related back to the date of the initial complaint under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.02 (2)…”
Sparks v. Mach, 993 N.W.2d 119 (Neb. 2023). · cites it 10× “Under certain situations as set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.02 (Reissue 2016), an amended complaint may relate back to the commencement date of an earlier complaint.”
Johnson v. Antoniutti, 318 Neb. 465 (Neb. 2025). · cites it 10× “The spe- cial administrator also argued that although the amended com- plaint named a viable defendant, it was time barred because it was filed after the limitations period expired, and that Nebraska’s relation back statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.02 (Reissue 2016), did not…”
Saylor v. State, 304 Neb. 779 (Neb. 2020). · cites it 3× “” Because Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.02 (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× “767 Gardner and UNMC urge that Appellants’ attempt to amend their complaint and substitute Nebraska Medicine for UNMC as a party also requires analysis of the relation-back doctrine found in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.02 (2) (Reissue 2016), and its associated jurisprudence.”
Sparks v. Mach, 982 N.W.2d 834 (Neb. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 7× “[9] Sparks is generally correct that her pleadings com- ply with the relation-back doctrine found in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.02 (1) (Reissue 2016).”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.02(1) — 6 cases
Sparks v. Mach, 993 N.W.2d 119 (Neb. 2023). “Under certain situations as set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.02 (Reissue 2016), an amended complaint may relate back to the commencement date of an earlier complaint.”
State v. Buttercase (Neb. Ct. App. 2017).
Hohenstein v. Hohenstein (Neb. Ct. App. 2023).
Mehner v. Doe (Neb. Ct. App. 2024).
Carter v. Civil Serv. Comm'n (Neb. Ct. App. 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, 309 Neb. 865 (Neb. 2021). “The district court determined that Limpach was entitled to summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds, because the evidence would not permit a finding that Davis’ claim against him related back to the date of the initial complaint under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.02 (2)…”
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., Inc., 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, 309 Neb. 865 (Neb. 2021). “The district court determined that Limpach was entitled to summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds, because the evidence would not permit a finding that Davis’ claim against him related back to the date of the initial complaint under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.02 (2)…”
Mehner v. Doe (Neb. Ct. App. 2024).
Correa v. Est. of Haskell (Neb. 2014).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.02(2)(b)(ii) — 2 cases
Davis v. Ridder, 309 Neb. 865 (Neb. 2021). “The district court determined that Limpach was entitled to summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds, because the evidence would not permit a finding that Davis’ claim against him related back to the date of the initial complaint under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.02 (2)…”
Mehner v. Doe (Neb. Ct. App. 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.