(1) Unless
otherwise limited by statute or by the court, a plaintiff may elect to have
service made by any of the following methods:
(a) Personal service which shall be made by leaving the summons
with the individual to be served;
(b) Residence service which shall be made by leaving the summons
at the usual place of residence of the individual to be served, with some
person of suitable age and discretion residing therein;
(c) Certified mail service which shall be made by (i) within
ten days of issuance, sending the summons to the defendant by certified mail
with a return receipt requested showing to whom and where delivered and the
date of delivery, and (ii) filing with the court proof of service with the
signed receipt attached; or
(d) Designated
delivery service which shall be made by (i) within ten days of issuance, sending
the summons by a designated delivery service to the defendant, (ii) obtaining
a signed delivery receipt showing to whom and where delivered and the date
of delivery, and (iii) filing with the court proof of service with a copy
of the signed delivery receipt attached. As used in this subdivision, a designated
delivery service means a delivery service designated as such pursuant to 26
U.S.C. 7502(f) and a signed delivery receipt includes an electronic or facsimile
receipt with an image of the recipient's signature.
(2) Failure to make service by the method elected by the plaintiff
does not affect the validity of the service.
(3) The State
Court Administrator shall maintain on the website of the Supreme Court a
list of designated delivery services.
Notes of Decisions
Wisner v. Vandelay Invs., L.L.C., 300 Neb. 825 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 6× “cord, and service was not limited to certified mail; under § 77-1832 (Reissue 2009), service need only be provided to the owner of record at the address where the property tax statement was mailed and may only be done by certified mail, return receipt requested; for tax…”
Kovar v. Habrock, 622 N.W.2d 688 (Neb. 2001).
· cites it 5× “Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-505.01 (Reissue 1995), service may be accomplished through personal service, residence service, or by certified mail.”
Carrizales v. Creighton St. Joseph, 979 N.W.2d 81 (Neb. 2022).
· cites it 4× “The district court found that the October 2013 summons was not delivered until April 2014 and was thus not sent within 10 days of issuance as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-505.01 (1)(c) (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Richter, 481 N.W.2d 200 (Neb. 1992).
· cites it 3× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-505.01 (Reissue 1989).”
Bayliss v. Clason, 26 Neb. Ct. App. 195 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “" Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-505.01 (1) (Reissue 2016).”
Anthony K. v. State, 289 Neb. 523 (Neb. 2014).
· cites it 3× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-505.01 (c) (Cum. Supp.”
Wisner v. Vandelay Investments, 300 Neb. 825 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 4× “rd, and service was not limited to certified mail; under § 77-1832 (Reissue 2009), service need only be provided to the owner of record at the address where the property tax statement was mailed and may only be done by certified mail, return receipt requested; for tax…”
Williams v. Gould, Inc., 443 N.W.2d 577 (Neb. 1989).
· cites it 2× “See, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-505.01 (Reissue 1985) (service of summons); Neb.”
Bolden v. Bd. of Regents, 973 N.W.2d 373 (Neb. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 6× “Although Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-505.01 (Reissue 2016) does not require service to be sent to the defendant’s residence or restrict delivery to the addressee, due process requires notice to be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and to…”
Glass v. Neb. Dept. of Motor Vehs., 536 N.W.2d 344 (Neb. 1995).
· cites it 2× “We stated: On further review, petitioners argue that both the district court and the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that they were required to serve summons upon the Attorney General even though they had complied with Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-505.01(1) (Reissue 1989).”
West Town Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Schneider, 380 N.W.2d 265 (Neb. 1986).
· cites it 4× “Both errors relate to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-505.01 (Supp. 1983), which provides that a plaintiff may elect to have service made by any of the following methods: (3) Certified mail service which shall be made by (a) within ten days of issuance, sending the summons to the defendant…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-505.01(1) — 5 cases
Glass v. Neb. Dept. of Motor Vehs., 536 N.W.2d 344 (Neb. 1995).
“We stated: On further review, petitioners argue that both the district court and the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that they were required to serve summons upon the Attorney General even though they had complied with Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-505.01(1) (Reissue 1989).”
Bolden v. Bd. of Regents, 973 N.W.2d 373 (Neb. Ct. App. 2022).
“Although Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-505.01 (Reissue 2016) does not require service to be sent to the defendant’s residence or restrict delivery to the addressee, due process requires notice to be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and to…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-505.01(1)(b) — 1 case
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-505.01(1)(c) — 5 cases
Carrizales v. Creighton St. Joseph, 979 N.W.2d 81 (Neb. 2022).
“The district court found that the October 2013 summons was not delivered until April 2014 and was thus not sent within 10 days of issuance as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-505.01 (1)(c) (Reissue 2016).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-505.01(2) — 1 case
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-505.01(2)(c) — 1 case
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-505.01(3) — 1 case
West Town Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Schneider, 380 N.W.2d 265 (Neb. 1986).
“Both errors relate to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-505.01 (Supp. 1983), which provides that a plaintiff may elect to have service made by any of the following methods: (3) Certified mail service which shall be made by (a) within ten days of issuance, sending the summons to the defendant…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-505.01(c)(i) — 1 case
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-505.01(l)(c) — 1 case
State v. Richter, 481 N.W.2d 200 (Neb. 1992).
“Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-505.01 (Reissue 1989).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-505.01(l)(e) — 1 case
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.