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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2612 (2026)

Confirmation of award

✓ 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

Within sixty days of the application of a party, the court shall confirm an award, unless within the time limits hereinafter imposed grounds are urged for vacating or modifying or correcting the award, in which case the court shall proceed as provided in sections 25-2613 and 25-2614.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2003–2022 · leading case: Garlock v. 3DS Props., L. L.C., 930 N.W.2d 503 (Neb. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Garlock v. 3DS Props., L. L.C., 930 N.W.2d 503 (Neb. 2019). · cites it 5× “*515 ERROR NOT TO CONFIRM AWARD UNDER § 25-2612 Section 25-2612 provides: Within sixty days of the application of a party, the court shall confirm an award, unless within the time limits hereinafter imposed grounds are urged for vacating or modifying or correcting the award, in…”
Hartman v. City of Grand Island, 657 N.W.2d 641 (Neb. 2003). · cites it 2× “” Section 25-2612 provides: “Within sixty days of the application of a party, the court shall confirm an award, unless within the time limits hereinafter imposed grounds are urged for vacating or modifying or correcting the award, in which case the court shall proceed as…”
Cinatl v. Prososki, 949 N.W.2d 505 (Neb. 2020). · cites it 2× “refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor, refused to hear evidence material to the controversy, or otherwise so conducted the hearing, contrary to the provisions of section 25-2606, as to prejudice substantially the rights of a party; (5) There…”
Ronald J. Palagi, P.C. v. Prospect Funding Holdings (Ny), LLC, 925 N.W.2d 344 (Neb. 2019). · cites it 2× “2d at 645 (" '[w]ithin sixty days of the application of a party, the court shall confirm an award, unless within the time limits hereinafter imposed grounds are urged for vacating or modifying or correcting the award, in which case the court shall proceed as provided in sections…”
Signal 88 v. Lyconic, 310 Neb. 824 (2022). · cites it 9× “Eventually, the court entered judgment on the award. On appeal, the Nebraska Court of Appeals found the award to be ambiguous, vacated the judgment, and remanded the matter to the district court with directions to remand the matter to the arbitrator for clarification.”
Garlock v. 3DS Props., 303 Neb. 521 (Neb. 2019). · cites it 7× “§ 25-2612 (Reissue 2016) of the Uniform Arbitration Act does not allow for the exercise of discretion by the court when a request of confirmation is made where there has been no application for vacation or modification.”
Signal 88 v. Lyconic, 956 N.W.2d 308 (Neb. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 9× “] 2003): “Moreover, §25-2613 does not include any authorization for a court to vacate an arbitration award on grounds that it is excessive or inequitable.”
Signal 88 v. Lyconic, 969 N.W.2d 651 (Neb. 2022). · cites it 9× “Eventually, the court entered judgment on the award. On appeal, the Nebraska Court of Appeals found the award to be ambiguous, vacated the judgment, and remanded the matter to the district court with directions to remand the matter to the arbitrator for clarification.”
Est. of Guido v. Exempla, Inc., 2012 COA 48, 292 P.3d 996. “§§ 27-5-311 to -313 (2011); Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 25-2612 to - 2614 (2011); Nev.”
Ronald J. Palagi, P.C. v. Prospect Funding Holdings, 302 Neb. 769 (Neb. 2019). · cites it 2× “They argue generally that the motion was ruled on before they had “the opportunity to complete reasonable, relevant discovery,”25 but they do not identify what discovery was incomplete or otherwise challenge the granting of summary judgment. We confine our analysis accordingly.…”
Damrow v. Murdoch, 739 N.W.2d 229 (Neb. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “On May 28, 2002, the Appellees filed a motion in the district court under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2612 (Reissue 1995), seeking to confirm the arbitration award.”
Ronald J. Palagi, P.C. v. Prospect Funding Holdings, 302 Neb. 769 (Neb. 2019). · cites it 2× “They argue generally that the motion was ruled on before they had “the opportunity to complete reasonable, relevant discovery,”25 but they do not identify what discovery was incomplete or otherwise challenge the granting of summary judgment. We confine our analysis accordingly.”
Show all 13 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.