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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-415 (2026)

Choice of forum in another state; action pending in this state; procedure

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

If the parties have agreed in writing that an action on a controversy shall be brought only in another state and it is brought in a court of this state, the court will dismiss or stay the action, as appropriate, unless (1) the court is required by statute to entertain the action; (2) the plaintiff cannot secure effective relief in the other state, for reasons other than delay in bringing the action; (3) the other state would be a substantially less convenient place for the trial of the action than this state; (4) the agreement as to the place of the action was obtained by misrepresentation, duress, the abuse of economic power, or other unconscionable means; or (5) it would for some other reason be unfair or unreasonable to enforce the agreement.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: Polk Cnty. Recreational Ass'n v. Susquehanna Patriot Com. Leasing Co., 734 N.W.2d 750 (Neb. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Polk Cnty. Recreational Ass'n v. Susquehanna Patriot Com. Leasing Co., 734 N.W.2d 750 (Neb. 2007). · cites it 26× “We conclude that the forum selection clause in the Thornridge lease was a mandatory forum selection clause that was enforceable pursuant to § 25-415 and that the court therefore did not err in dismissing the complaint as to Patriot with regard to that lease.”
Haakinson & Beaty Co. v. Inland Ins., 344 N.W.2d 454 (Neb. 1984). · cites it 24× “The provision of the bond in question is in accordance with Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-415 (Reissue 1979), which provides as follows: "If the parties have agreed in writing that an action on a controversy shall be brought only in another state and it is brought in a court of this state,…”
Woodmen of the World Life Ins. v. Yelich, 549 N.W.2d 172 (Neb. 1996). · cites it 5× “tate 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…”
Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Soc'y v. Yelich, 549 N.W.2d 172 (Neb. 1996). · cites it 5× “See, also, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-415 (Reissue 1995) (pertaining to forum selection clauses placing choice of forum in another state).”
Ramos v. Aqua Palace (Neb. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 23× “On appeal, this court reversed and remanded the dismissal, holding that the district court failed to consider evidence relevant to whether an exception stated in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-415 (Reissue 2016) barred enforcement of the forum selection clause.”
Ramos v. Aqua Palace (Neb. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 15× “In response to Ramos’ complaint, Aqua Palace filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-415 (Reissue 2016) and Neb.”
Heartland Fam. Servs. v. Netsmart Tech., Inc., 961 F. Supp. 2d 964 (D. Neb. 2013). · cites it 7× “At the time of contract, the parties knew the location of Heartland and Netsmart, the residency of its employees, potential litigation expenses for Heartland, and the inconvenience of travel.”
Original Equip. Co. v. East Coast Resources Grp., LLC, 966 F. Supp. 2d 845 (D. Neb. 2013). · cites it 2× “2d 454 (1984) (forum selection clause in indemnity bond which complied with Nebraska’s Model Uniform Choice of Forum Act was not contrary to public policy, and provisions of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-415, requiring dismissal or stay of action filed in Nebraska in violation of a forum…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-415(3) — 2 cases
Heartland Fam. Servs. v. Netsmart Tech., Inc., 961 F. Supp. 2d 964 (D. Neb. 2013). “At the time of contract, the parties knew the location of Heartland and Netsmart, the residency of its employees, potential litigation expenses for Heartland, and the inconvenience of travel.”
Ramos v. Aqua Palace (Neb. Ct. App. 2026). “On appeal, this court reversed and remanded the dismissal, holding that the district court failed to consider evidence relevant to whether an exception stated in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-415 (Reissue 2016) barred enforcement of the forum selection clause.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-415(4) — 2 cases
Ramos v. Aqua Palace (Neb. Ct. App. 2024). “In response to Ramos’ complaint, Aqua Palace filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-415 (Reissue 2016) and Neb.”
Ramos v. Aqua Palace (Neb. Ct. App. 2026). “On appeal, this court reversed and remanded the dismissal, holding that the district court failed to consider evidence relevant to whether an exception stated in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-415 (Reissue 2016) barred enforcement of the forum selection clause.”
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.