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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2601 (2026)

Act, how cited

✓ 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

Sections 25-2601 to 25-2622 shall be known and may be cited as the Uniform Arbitration Act.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1989–2024 · leading case: Cullinane v. Beverly Enters.-Neb., Inc., 912 N.W.2d 774 (Neb. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cullinane v. Beverly Enters.-Neb., Inc., 912 N.W.2d 774 (Neb. 2018). · cites it 2× “Nebraska has adopted the Uniform Arbitration Act (UAA), which is codified in Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-2601 to 25-2622 (Reissue 2016).”
Pearce v. Mut. of Omaha Ins. Co., 293 Neb. 277 (2016). · cites it 2× “1 Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-2601 to 25-2622 (Reissue 2008 & Cum.”
Wilczewski v. Charter West Nat. Bank, 889 N.W.2d 63 (Neb. 2016). · cites it 2× “District Court’s Order After the evidentiary hearing, the district court sustained Charter’s motion to compel arbitration. The court noted the strong public policy in favor of arbitration and construed the arbitration clause broadly.”
Garlock v. 3DS Props., L. L.C., 930 N.W.2d 503 (Neb. 2019). · cites it 2× “2 Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-2601 to 25-2622 (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Henderson, 762 N.W.2d 1 (Neb. 2009). · cites it 3× “In summary, while I disagree with many of the arbitrator's factual findings and legal conclusions and share the majority's revulsion toward Henderson's affiliation with the Knights Party and everything that organization stands for, I cannot conclude that the award of…”
Seldin v. Est. of Silverman, 939 N.W.2d 768 (Neb. 2020). · cites it 3× “13 The Omaha Seldins claim the Arizona Seldins are precluded from seeking modification or vacatur of the final award on public policy grounds because this argument was not raised within 3 months of the final order being issued as required by § 12 of the FAA.”
Aramark Unif. & Career Apparel, Inc. v. Hunan, Inc., 757 N.W.2d 205 (Neb. 2008). · cites it 2× “" [37] Because the FAA governs the service contract, we must yield to the precedent set by the Court's holding in Doctor's Associates, Inc.”
Cornhusker Int'l Trucks, Inc. v. Thomas Built Buses, Inc., 637 N.W.2d 876 (Neb. 2002). · cites it 2× “See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-2601 to 25-2622 (Reissue 1995 & Cum.”
Hartman v. City of Grand Island, 657 N.W.2d 641 (Neb. 2003). · cites it 2× “The city’s first assignment of error concerns the refusal of the district court to invalidate the award based upon the fact that it was signed by only one of the three arbitrators.”
Boyd v. Cook, 906 N.W.2d 31 (Neb. 2018). · cites it 2× “37 Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-2601 to 25-2622 (Reissue 2016).”
Cinatl v. Prososki, 949 N.W.2d 505 (Neb. 2020). · cites it 2× “15 [10] Under our final order statute, 16 to be a final order subject to appellate review, the lower court’s order must (1) affect a substantial right and determine the action and prevent a judgment, (2) affect a substantial right and be made during a special proceeding, (3)…”
Millennium Solutions, Inc. v. Davis, 603 N.W.2d 406 (Neb. 1999). · cites it 3× “ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Davis assigns as error that the district court erred in finding that the predispute binding arbitration clause contained in the contract between the parties was void as against public policy and in failing to find that the Uniform Arbitration Act, Neb.”
Show all 31 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.