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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-217 (2026)

Action; commencement; defendant not properly served; effect

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

(1) An action is commenced on the day the complaint is filed with the court.

(2) Each defendant in the action must be properly served within one hundred eighty days of the commencement of the action. If the action is stayed or enjoined during the one-hundred-eighty-day period, then any defendant who was not properly served before the action was stayed or enjoined must be properly served within ninety days after the stay or injunction is terminated or modified so as to allow the action to proceed.

(3) If any defendant is not properly served within the time specified by subsection (2) of this section then the action against that defendant is dismissed by operation of law. The dismissal is without prejudice and becomes effective on the day after the time for service expires.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 77 cases (25 in the last 5 years), 1962–2026 · leading case: Vopalka v. Abraham, 619 N.W.2d 594 (Neb. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Vopalka v. Abraham, 619 N.W.2d 594 (Neb. 2000). · cites it 60× “The Court of Appeals determined that because Vopalka had failed to serve the defendants within 6 months after filing his petition as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-217 (Reissue 1995), the action stood dismissed and the district court thereafter lacked jurisdiction to consider…”
Reid v. Evans, 733 N.W.2d 186 (Neb. 2007). · cites it 46× “See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-217 (Cum. Supp. 2006).”
Timothy L. Ashford, PC LLO v. Roses, 984 N.W.2d 596 (Neb. 2023). · cites it 14× “In the same order, the court formalized dismissal of the action as against Roses Roses and all Doe defendants pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-217 (Cum. Supp. 2022).”
Carrizales v. Creighton St. Joseph, 979 N.W.2d 81 (Neb. 2022). · cites it 20× “The district court concluded, however, that because Carrizales failed to serve Creighton University within the dead- line provided at the time in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-217 (Reissue 2016), Creighton University was dismissed by operation of - 299 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance…”
Davis v. Moats, 308 Neb. 757 (Neb. 2021). · cites it 6× “Exhibits 9 and 10 were received into evidence at the hearing on Moats’ motion to vacate the court’s judgment and were offered to show that Pirnie was aware of the proceedings and did not object to Davis’ request for grandparent visitation.”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Allstate Ins., 684 N.W.2d 14 (Neb. 2004). · cites it 15× “In the instant declaratory judgment case, the district court concluded that service on Campbell had not been completed within 6 months of the filing of the petition in the underlying action, as required by Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-217 (Reissue 1995), and that the underlying action…”
Stone Land & Livestock Co. v. HBE, 309 Neb. 970 (Neb. 2021). · cites it 6× “Based on its determination that HBE had not made a voluntary appearance and Stone Land had not perfected service upon HBE, the district court determined that the matter was properly dismissed under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-217 (2) (Reissue 2016).”
Fox v. Nick, 660 N.W.2d 881 (Neb. 2003). · cites it 14× “Nick was served prior to the expiration of the 6-month period for service of process permitted by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-217 (Reissue 1995). The district court granted summary judgment against Fox on the ground that Fox failed to commence his action within the applicable statute…”
Kovar v. Habrock, 622 N.W.2d 688 (Neb. 2001). · cites it 10× “At issue is whether, under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-217 (Reissue 1995), the action of the appellee, Vicki L.”
Childs v. Frakes, 981 N.W.2d 598 (Neb. 2022). · cites it 17× “In this appeal, we consider whether the service and auto- matic dismissal provisions of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-217 (Cum. Supp. 2020) apply to habeas corpus proceedings.”
Burns v. Burns, 879 N.W.2d 375 (Neb. 2016). · cites it 3× “ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Michael’s petition for further review assigns eight errors. We consider only two issues: (1) whether jurisdiction was con- ferred on the district court such that the Court of Appeals erred in finding the case had been dismissed under Neb.”
Trausch v. Hagemeier, 313 Neb. 538 (Neb. 2023). · cites it 7× “After dismissal of an action as to a named party by operation of law under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-217 (3) (Cum. Supp. 2022), there is no longer an action pending against that party and the district court has no jurisdic- tion to make any further orders except to formalize the…”
Show all 77 citing cases →
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-217(2) — 3 cases
Davis v. Moats, 308 Neb. 757 (Neb. 2021). “Exhibits 9 and 10 were received into evidence at the hearing on Moats’ motion to vacate the court’s judgment and were offered to show that Pirnie was aware of the proceedings and did not object to Davis’ request for grandparent visitation.”
Davis v. Moats, 308 Neb. 757 (Neb. 2021).
Circo Enters. v. Harris (Neb. Ct. App. 2025).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-217(3) — 3 cases
Trausch v. Hagemeier, 313 Neb. 538 (Neb. 2023). “After dismissal of an action as to a named party by operation of law under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-217 (3) (Cum. Supp. 2022), there is no longer an action pending against that party and the district court has no jurisdic- tion to make any further orders except to formalize the…”
Trausch v. Hagemeier, 313 Neb. 538 (Neb. 2023).
Lopez v. Jorge (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.