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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 (2026)

Actions for trespass, conversion, other torts, and frauds; exceptions

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The following actions can only be brought within four years: (1) An action for trespass upon real property; (2) an action for taking, detaining or injuring personal property, including actions for the specific recovery of personal property; (3) an action for an injury to the rights of the plaintiff, not arising on contract, and not hereinafter enumerated; and (4) an action for relief on the ground of fraud, but the cause of action in such case shall not be deemed to have accrued until the discovery of the fraud, except as provided in sections 30-2206 and 76-288 to 76-298.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 204 cases (47 in the last 5 years), 1948–2026 · leading case: Manker v. Manker, 644 N.W.2d 522 (Neb. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Manker v. Manker, 644 N.W.2d 522 (Neb. 2002). · cites it 14× “Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-207 (Reissue 1995) is the applicable statute of limitations with regard to the establishment of a constructive trust on personal property.”
Alston v. Hormel Foods Corp., 730 N.W.2d 376 (Neb. 2007). · cites it 9× “*436 The district court erred in entering summary judgment and dismissing Alston’s complaint.”
Trausch v. Hagemeier, 313 Neb. 538 (Neb. 2023). · cites it 12× “Because it determined that the claims were barred by the 4-year statute of limita- tions for negligence, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 (3) (Reissue 2016), the district court dismissed the amended complaint and did so with prejudice.”
Chafin v. Wis. Province of the Soc'y of Jesus, 917 N.W.2d 821 (Neb. 2018). · cites it 4× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 (3) (Reissue 2016) sets forth a 4-year statute of limitations for "an action for an injury to the rights of the plaintiff, not arising on contract, and not hereinafter enumerated.”
Andres v. McNeil Co., Inc., 707 N.W.2d 777 (Neb. 2005). · cites it 8× “§ 25-207 (Reissue 1995)” and that based upon these statutes of limitations, appellant’s claims *741 against appellees were time barred because they were not filed within 4 years of January 1994. Given the allegations as set forth in the complaint, we conclude that the district…”
Chafin v. Wisconsin Province Soc'y of Jesus, 301 Neb. 94 (Neb. 2018). · cites it 4× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 (3) (Reissue 2016) sets forth a 4-year statute of limitations for “an action for an injury to the rights of the plaintiff, not aris- ing on contract, and not hereinafter enumerated.”
Poor Bear v. Nesbitt, 300 F. Supp. 2d 904 (D. Neb. 2004). · cites it 16× “Statute of Limitations Because Poor Bear’s complaint was filed on July 3, 2003, the defendants assert that the plaintiffs claims arising before July 3, 1999, are barred by Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-207, the four-year statute of limitations applicable to section 1983 actions in Nebraska.”
Susman v. Kearney Towing & Repair Ctr., 310 Neb. 910 (Neb. 2022). · cites it 17× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 (Reissue 2016) provides that a tort action, described as an action for an injury to the rights of the plaintiff, not arising on contract, can only be brought within 4 years.”
Becker v. Hobbs, 590 N.W.2d 360 (Neb. 1999). · cites it 10× “and future special damages then unascertainable. Becker demurred to Hobbs’ counterclaim, on the ground that the applicable statute of limitations had run prior to the date that Hobbs filed the counterclaim.”
Grand Island Sch. Dist. 2 v. Celotex Corp., 279 N.W.2d 603 (Neb. 1979). · cites it 6× “First of all, the period of 4 years after discovery which we would have applied under section 25-207, R. R. S. 1943, was shortened to 2 years after discovery by section 25-222, R.”
Broekemeier Ford, Inc. v. Clatanoff, 481 N.W.2d 416 (Neb. 1992). · cites it 7× “In their answers, the defendants asserted that Broekemeiers’ cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations expressed in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 (Reissue 1989) (a tort action for fraud must be commenced within 4 years after discovery of the fraud).”
Babbitt v. Hronik, 623 N.W.2d 700 (Neb. 2001). · cites it 11× “The district court concluded that an action had never been commenced within the statute of limitations under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 (Reissue 1995) (4-year limitation on personal injury claims) and Neb.”
Show all 204 citing cases →
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207(2) — 2 cases
Gatewood v. Powell, 511 N.W.2d 159 (Neb. Ct. App. 1993).
Gatliff v. Little Audrey's Transp. Co., 317 F. Supp. 1117 (D. Neb. 1970).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207(3) — 14 cases
Trausch v. Hagemeier, 313 Neb. 538 (Neb. 2023). “Because it determined that the claims were barred by the 4-year statute of limita- tions for negligence, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 (3) (Reissue 2016), the district court dismissed the amended complaint and did so with prejudice.”
Susman v. Kearney Towing & Repair Ctr., 310 Neb. 910 (Neb. 2022). “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 (Reissue 2016) provides that a tort action, described as an action for an injury to the rights of the plaintiff, not arising on contract, can only be brought within 4 years.”
Ass'n of Commonwealth v. Moylan, 517 N.W.2d 94 (Neb. 1994).
Griffith v. LG Chem Am., 315 Neb. 892 (Neb. 2024).
Upah v. Ancona Bros. Co., 521 N.W.2d 895 (Neb. 1994).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207(4) — 12 cases
Chafin v. Wis. Province of the Soc'y of Jesus, 917 N.W.2d 821 (Neb. 2018). “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 (3) (Reissue 2016) sets forth a 4-year statute of limitations for "an action for an injury to the rights of the plaintiff, not arising on contract, and not hereinafter enumerated.”
Chafin v. Wisconsin Province Soc'y of Jesus, 301 Neb. 94 (Neb. 2018). “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 (3) (Reissue 2016) sets forth a 4-year statute of limitations for “an action for an injury to the rights of the plaintiff, not aris- ing on contract, and not hereinafter enumerated.”
League v. Vanice, 374 N.W.2d 849 (Neb. 1985).
Trausch v. Hagemeier, 313 Neb. 538 (Neb. 2023). “Because it determined that the claims were barred by the 4-year statute of limita- tions for negligence, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 (3) (Reissue 2016), the district court dismissed the amended complaint and did so with prejudice.”
Konecne v. Abram, LLC, 319 Neb. 966 (Neb. 2025).
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.