Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-414 (2026)

Choice of forum; jurisdiction; conditions

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) If the parties have agreed in writing that an action on a controversy may be brought in this state and the agreement provides the only basis for the exercise of jurisdiction, a court of this state will entertain the action if (a) the court has power under the law of this state to entertain the action; (b) this state is a reasonably convenient place for the trial of the action; (c) the agreement as to the place of the action was not obtained by misrepresentation, duress, the abuse of economic power, or other unconscionable means; and (d) the defendant, if within the state, was served as required by law of this state in the case of persons within the state or, if without the state, was served either personally or by certified mail directed to his last-known address.

(2) This section does not apply to cognovit clauses, to arbitration clauses, or to the appointment of an agent for the service of process pursuant to statute or court order.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2021 · leading case: Ameritas Inv. Corp. v. McKinney, 694 N.W.2d 191 (Neb. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ameritas Inv. Corp. v. McKinney, 694 N.W.2d 191 (Neb. 2005). · cites it 8× “See § 25-414. The court found that “[ajlthough the complaint in this case does not go into the details of the dispute, it is clear that the primary evidence will be the testimony of the disgruntled policy holder.”

Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co. v. E.M. Pizza, Inc., 26 Neb. Ct. App. 906 (Neb. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 8× “We analyze each of these in turn starting with the long-arm statute, because the Choice of Forum Act, by its terms, applies only when Nebraska courts would have no jurisdiction but for the fact that the parties have consented to its exercise by the choice-of-forum agreement.”

Polk Cnty. Recreational Ass'n v. Susquehanna Patriot Com. Leasing Co., 734 N.W.2d 750 (Neb. 2007). · cites it 2× “We determined that a challenge which claims that a forum selection clause naming Nebraska as the forum does not meet the requirements of the Act is properly viewed as a challenge to the personal jurisdiction over the defendant by the Nebraska court and that therefore, the…”

Applied Underwriters v. E.M. Pizza, 26 Neb. Ct. App. 906 (Neb. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 10× “In determining whether a state is a reasonably convenient place for the trial of an action under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-414 (1)(b) (Reissue 2016), courts are required to consider both private and public interest factors.”

Woodmen of the World Life Ins. v. Yelich, 549 N.W.2d 172 (Neb. 1996). · cites it 2× “Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-414 (Reissue 1995). See, also, Neb.”

Woodmen of World Life Ins. Soc'y v. Walker, 510 N.W.2d 439 (Neb. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 7× “The decision of this court in Puccio was based on Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-414 (Reissue 1989), which states in part that “[i]f the parties have agreed in writing that an action on a controversy may be brought in this state and the agreement provides the only basis for the exercise…”

Milmar Food Grp. II v. Applied Underwriters, 29 Neb. Ct. App. 714 (Neb. Ct. App. 2021). “] § 25-414(1)(b) [(Reissue 2016) of the Model Uniform Choice of Forum Act].”

Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Soc'y v. Yelich, 549 N.W.2d 172 (Neb. 1996). · cites it 2× “an action on a controversy may be brought in this state and the agreement provides the only basis for the exercise of jurisdiction, a court of this state will entertain the action if (a) the court has power under the law of this state to entertain the action; (b) this state is a…”

Woodmen of the World Life Ins. v. Puccio, 499 N.W.2d 85 (Neb. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “§§ 25-413 to 25-417 (Reissue 1989), which states in part: (1) If the parties have agreed in writing that an action on a controversy may be brought in this state and the agreement provides the only basis for the exercise of jurisdiction, a court of this state will entertain the…”

Woodmen of World Life Ins. Soc'y v. Puccio, 499 N.W.2d 85 (Neb. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “(b) this state is a reasonably convenient place for the trial of the action---- § 25-414(1). West Virginia has not adopted the model act.”

Original Equip. Co. v. East Coast Resources Grp., LLC, 966 F. Supp. 2d 845 (D. Neb. 2013). · cites it 9× “4 In particular, ECR disputed that Nebraska is “a reasonably convenient place for the trial of the action,” which is a necessary condition for enforcing a forum selection clause under § 25-414. That statute provides, in part: If the parties have agreed in writing that an action…”

Applied Underwriters v. O'Connell Landscape Maint. (Neb. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 3× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-414 (1) (Reissue 2016) (emphasis supplied).”

Show all 13 citing cases →

— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-414(1) — 5 cases

Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co. v. E.M. Pizza, Inc., 26 Neb. Ct. App. 906 (Neb. Ct. App. 2019). “We analyze each of these in turn starting with the long-arm statute, because the Choice of Forum Act, by its terms, applies only when Nebraska courts would have no jurisdiction but for the fact that the parties have consented to its exercise by the choice-of-forum agreement.”

Applied Underwriters v. E.M. Pizza, 26 Neb. Ct. App. 906 (Neb. Ct. App. 2019). “In determining whether a state is a reasonably convenient place for the trial of an action under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-414 (1)(b) (Reissue 2016), courts are required to consider both private and public interest factors.”

Woodmen of the World Life Ins. v. Puccio, 499 N.W.2d 85 (Neb. Ct. App. 1993). “§§ 25-413 to 25-417 (Reissue 1989), which states in part: (1) If the parties have agreed in writing that an action on a controversy may be brought in this state and the agreement provides the only basis for the exercise of jurisdiction, a court of this state will entertain the…”

Woodmen of World Life Ins. Soc'y v. Puccio, 499 N.W.2d 85 (Neb. Ct. App. 1993). “(b) this state is a reasonably convenient place for the trial of the action---- § 25-414(1). West Virginia has not adopted the model act.”

Original Equip. Co. v. East Coast Resources Grp., LLC, 966 F. Supp. 2d 845 (D. Neb. 2013). “4 In particular, ECR disputed that Nebraska is “a reasonably convenient place for the trial of the action,” which is a necessary condition for enforcing a forum selection clause under § 25-414. That statute provides, in part: If the parties have agreed in writing that an action…”

— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-414(1)(b) — 6 cases

Milmar Food Grp. II v. Applied Underwriters, 29 Neb. Ct. App. 714 (Neb. Ct. App. 2021). “] § 25-414(1)(b) [(Reissue 2016) of the Model Uniform Choice of Forum Act].”

Woodmen of World Life Ins. Soc'y v. Walker, 510 N.W.2d 439 (Neb. Ct. App. 1993). “The decision of this court in Puccio was based on Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-414 (Reissue 1989), which states in part that “[i]f the parties have agreed in writing that an action on a controversy may be brought in this state and the agreement provides the only basis for the exercise…”

Applied Underwriters v. O'Connell Landscape Maint. (Neb. Ct. App. 2019). “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-414 (1) (Reissue 2016) (emphasis supplied).”

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.