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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-217 (2026)

Action; commencement; defendant not properly served; effect

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
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 v. Roses, 984 N.W.2d 596 (Neb. 2023). · cites it 14× “Andrea’s answer to the amended complaint generally denied liability for these claims and affirmatively alleged that Andrea “is not the person identified as Roses Roses.”
Carrizales v. Creighton St. Joseph, 979 N.W.2d 81 (Neb. 2022). · cites it 20× “§ 25-217 (Reissue 2016), Creighton University was dismissed by operation of - 299 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 312 Nebraska Reports CARRIZALES V. CREIGHTON ST.”
Davis v. Moats, 956 N.W.2d 682 (Neb. 2021). · cites it 6× “Therefore, the matter is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consist­ent with this opinion.”
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, 962 N.W.2d 903 (Neb. 2021). · cites it 6× “We later granted a motion for revivor filed by the personal representative of the estate of a deceased shareholder of Stone Land and revived the appeal in the name of the personal representative, in her capacity as personal representative. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR Stone Land assigns…”
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× “We hold that § 25-217 has no application to habeas corpus proceedings, and consequently, the district court erred when it dismissed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to that statute.”
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, 985 N.W.2d 402 (Neb. 2023). · cites it 7× “2022), there is no longer an action pending against that party and the district court has no jurisdiction to make any further orders except to formalize the dismissal. 21. Actions: Attorney Fees: Words and Phrases.”
Show all 77 citing cases →
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-217(2): 3 cases
Davis v. Moats, 956 N.W.2d 682 (Neb. 2021). “Therefore, the matter is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consist­ent with this opinion.”
Davis v. Moats, 308 Neb. 757 (Neb. 2021).
Circo Enters. v. Harris, No. A-24-507 (Neb. Ct. App. May 13, 2025).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-217(3): 3 cases
Trausch v. Hagemeier, 985 N.W.2d 402 (Neb. 2023). “2022), there is no longer an action pending against that party and the district court has no jurisdiction to make any further orders except to formalize the dismissal. 21. Actions: Attorney Fees: Words and Phrases.”
Trausch v. Hagemeier, 313 Neb. 538 (2023).
Lopez v. Jorge, No. A-23-815 (Neb. Ct. App. June 4, 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.