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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-208 (2026)

Actions for libel, slander, malpractice, and recovery of tax

✓ 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 the periods stated in this section: Within one year, an action for libel or slander; and within two years, an action for malpractice which is not otherwise specifically limited by statute.

In the absence of any other shorter applicable statute of limitations, any action for the recovery of any excise or other tax which has been collected under any statute of the State of Nebraska and which has been finally adjudged to be unconstitutional shall be brought within one year after the final decision of the court declaring it to be unconstitutional. This section shall not apply to any action for the recovery of a property tax.

The changes made to this section by Laws 2000, LB 921, shall apply to causes of action accruing on and after July 13, 2000.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 48 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1948–2025 · leading case: Berntsen v. Coopers & Lybrand, 546 N.W.2d 310 (Neb. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Berntsen v. Coopers & Lybrand, 546 N.W.2d 310 (Neb. 1996). · cites it 20× “The court found that where fraud and malpractice allegations are made, the malpractice statute of limitations set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-208 (Reissue 1989) applies.”
Timothy L. Ashford, PC LLO v. Roses, 984 N.W.2d 596 (Neb. 2023). · cites it 6× “The limitations period in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-208 (Reissue 2016) commences upon the publica- tion of the defamatory matter which forms the basis of the action.”
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. v. Touche Ross & Co., 507 N.W.2d 275 (Neb. 1993). · cites it 11× “A third statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-208 (Reissue 1989), provides, in relevant part: “The following actions can only be brought within the periods herein stated:.”
Tylle v. Zoucha, 412 N.W.2d 438 (Neb. 1987). · cites it 8× “17, 1972), and doctors were specifically mentioned in the floor debates. Floor Debate, L.B. 1132, 82d Leg.”
Ward v. City of All., 417 N.W.2d 327 (Neb. 1988). · cites it 8× “2d 581 (1962), with respect to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-208 (Reissue 1964), would result in a bar to the present action.”
LaBenz Trucking, Inc. v. Snyder, 519 N.W.2d 259 (Neb. 1994). · cites it 12× “Snyder did not answer, but moved for summary judgment on the basis that plaintiffs’ cause of action was time barred by Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-208 (Cum. Supp. 1992) and 20-211 (Reissue 1991).”
Churchill v. Columbus Comm. Hosp., 830 N.W.2d 53 (Neb. 2013). · cites it 3× “The court con- cluded that a 2-year statute of limitations applied, citing Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-208 and 25-222 (Reissue 2008).”
Syring v. Archdiocese of Omaha, 317 Neb. 195 (Neb. 2024). · cites it 6× “The limitations period in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-208 (Reissue 2016) commences upon the publica- tion of the defamatory matter which forms the basis of the action.”
Healy v. Langdon, 511 N.W.2d 498 (Neb. 1994). · cites it 2× “That is, a professional malpractice cause of action accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run when the allegedly wrongful act or omission occurs.”
Vergara v. Lopez-Vasquez, 510 N.W.2d 550 (Neb. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-208 (Reissue 1989), an action for libel must be filed within 1 year.”
Arthur Ex Rel. City of Beatrice v. Trindel, 96 N.W.2d 208 (Neb. 1959). · cites it 6× “1943, which provides in part that: “The following actions can only be brought within the periods herein stated: Within one year, * * * an action upon a statute for a penalty or forfeiture, * * We conclude that defendant’s contention has no merit. Rather, we hold that section…”
Swassing v. Baum, 240 N.W.2d 24 (Neb. 1976). · cites it 2× “We stated: “We do not think that the advise and the statements of a physician as to the nature and cause of a patient’s condition, as a part of the necessities of treating and consulting with the patients, are separable.”
Show all 48 citing cases →
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.