(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, an action upon a specialty, or any agreement, contract, or promise in writing, or foreign judgment, can only be brought within five years. No action at law or equity may be brought or maintained attacking the validity or enforceability of or to rescind or declare void and uncollectible any written contract entered into pursuant to, in compliance with, or in reliance on, a statute of the State of Nebraska which has been or hereafter is held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Nebraska where such holding is the basis for such action, unless such action be brought or maintained within one year from the effective date of such decision. The provisions hereof shall not operate to extend the time in which to bring any action or to revive any action now barred by reason of the operation of any previously existing limitation provision.
(2) An action to recover collateral (a) the possession and ownership of which a debtor has in any manner transferred to another person and (b) which was used as security for payment pursuant to an agreement, contract, or promise in writing which covers farm products as described in section 9-102, Uniform Commercial Code, or farm products which become inventory of a person engaged in farming, shall be brought within eighteen months from the date possession and ownership of such collateral was transferred.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
97
cases (
15 in the last 5 years), 1945–2025 · leading case:
Reinke Mfg. Co. v. Hayes, 590 N.W.2d 380 (Neb. 1999).
Reinke Mfg. Co. v. Hayes, 590 N.W.2d 380 (Neb. 1999).
· cites it 10× “With regard to Hayes’ motion for summary judgment, Reinke argues that the district court erred in determining that (1) Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-205 (Reissue 1995) was not the “more applicable” statute of limitations for Reinke’s breach of contract claim, (2) Reinke’s cause of action…”
Deuth v. Ratigan, 590 N.W.2d 366 (Neb. 1999).
· cites it 10× “In her motion, Ratigan asserted that the proceeding was barred under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-205 (Reissue 1995), which establishes a 5-year limitation period for an “action upon a .”
First Nat. Bank of Omaha v. Davey, 830 N.W.2d 63 (Neb. 2013).
· cites it 5× “835 § 76-1013 and not the general statute of limitations for actions on written contracts in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-205 (Reissue 2008). It found that the Act “is unambiguous, and therefore does not need any interpretation by this [c]ourt, in its expres- sion of the statutory time…”
Doty v. West Gate Bank, 874 N.W.2d 839 (Neb. 2016).
· cites it 2× “[8] This reading is reinforced by the Act’s use of the term “an action” in another provision, which states: The trustee’s sale of property under a trust deed shall be made within the period prescribed in section 25-205 for the commencement of an action on the obligation secured…”
Kratochvil v. Motor Club Ins. Ass'n, 588 N.W.2d 565 (Neb. 1999).
· cites it 12× “01 did not contain any reference to a limitation period, the general statute of limitations applying to written contracts, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-205 (Reissue 1995), should control.”
Blankenau v. Landess, 626 N.W.2d 588 (Neb. 2001).
· cites it 3× “See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-205 (Reissue 1995). On February 10, 2000, a bench trial was had on Blankenau’s petition for restitution.”
Dworak v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 693 N.W.2d 522 (Neb. 2005).
· cites it 4× “Dworak claims that her cause of action is controlled by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-205 (Reissue 1995), which provides that an action on a written contract must be commenced within 5 years.”
City of Lincoln v. Hershberger, 725 N.W.2d 787 (Neb. 2007).
· cites it 4× “During the course of the proceedings in the district court, a default money judgment was entered against PMI and the claim continued against the Hershbergers individually as guarantors.”
Schrader v. Farmers Mut. Ins., 608 N.W.2d 194 (Neb. 2000).
· cites it 10× “The district court rejected Schrader’s argument that the contract statute of limitations, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-205 (Reissue 1995), applied, stating: [Section] 44-6413 clearly states the statute of limitations for underinsured motorist coverage is the same as the statute of…”
Sports Courts of Omaha, Ltd. v. Meginnis, 497 N.W.2d 38 (Neb. 1993).
· cites it 4× “Sports Courts appeals and, referring to the statute of limitations issue, contends that the general 5-year statute of *770 limitations, expressed in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-205 (Reissue 1989), governs the time limit for commencement of the action against Meginnis.”
Dutton-Lainson Co. v. Cont'l Ins., 716 N.W.2d 87 (Neb. 2006).
· cites it 2× “Statute of Limitations The parties agree that the applicable statute of limitations is contained in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-205 (Cum. Supp. 2004), which provides a 5-year statute of limitations on written contracts.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-205(1) — 6 cases
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-205(2) — 1 case
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.