Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-705 (2026)

Joinder; procedures; misjoinder

✓ current as of July 2026

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

(1) This section applies when an action involves multiple parties or more than one cause of action.

(2) A plaintiff or defendant need not be interested in obtaining or defending against all the relief demanded. Judgment may be given for one or more of the plaintiffs according to their respective rights to relief and against one or more of the defendants according to their respective liabilities.

(3) The court may make such orders as will prevent a party from being embarrassed, delayed, or put to expense by the inclusion of a party against whom the party asserts no claim and who asserts no claim against the party and may order separate trials or make other orders to prevent delay or prejudice.

(4) Persons other than those made parties to the original action may be made parties to a counterclaim or cross-claim in accordance with section 25-311 or 25-320.

(5) Misjoinder of parties is not ground for dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or of its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just. Any claim against a party may be severed and proceeded with separately.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 22 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1999–2022 · leading case: Keef v. State, Dep't of Motor Vehs., 634 N.W.2d 751 (Neb. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Keef v. State, Dep't of Motor Vehs., 634 N.W.2d 751 (Neb. 2001). · cites it 4× “1998] that this order of partial summary judgment is a final order on fewer than all of the claims of the plaintiffs and that there is no just reason for delay of an appeal from the entry of this order.”

Bargmann v. State, Dept. of Roads, 600 N.W.2d 797 (Neb. 1999). · cites it 5× “Of further interest but not directly applicable in this case is Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-705 (6) (Cum. Supp. 1998), effective July 15, 1998.”

Eicher v. Mid Am. Fin. Inv. Corp., 702 N.W.2d 792 (Neb. 2005). · cites it 2× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-705 (Cum. Supp. 2004) provides in relevant part: (1) This section applies when an action involves multiple parties or more than one cause of action.”

Shlien v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Nebraska, 640 N.W.2d 643 (Neb. 2002). · cites it 3× “The district court entered judgment in favor of the University and against Shlien pursuant to the then applicable Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-705 (6) (Supp. 1999), now found at Neb.”

Chief Indus., Inc. v. Great N. Ins., 612 N.W.2d 225 (Neb. 2000). · cites it 7× “In the case at bar, § 25-705 was in effect at the time of the trial court’s order.”

W. Ethanol Co. v. Midwest Renewable Energy, 305 Neb. 1 (Neb. 2020). · cites it 2× “” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-705 (5) (Reissue 2016) provides that “[p]arties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or of its own initiative at any stage of the action .”

Tri-Par Investments, L.L.C. v. Sousa, 680 N.W.2d 190 (Neb. 2004). · cites it 3× “Tri-Par appealed the order, and the Nebraska Court of Appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the district court’s order did not adjudicate all the claims of all the parties and, therefore, was not a final, appealable order under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-705 (6) (Supp.…”

Scottsdale Ins. v. City of Lincoln, 617 N.W.2d 806 (Neb. 2000). · cites it 6× “In this appeal, we take the opportunity to remind the practicing bar of the effect of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-705 (6) (Cum. Supp. 1998), which became effective July 15,1998.”

Luethke v. Suhr, 650 N.W.2d 220 (Neb. 2002). · cites it 2× “I wish I could reach the opposite conclusion, but I believe the wiser public policy and the law requires the ruling I make in this particular instance.”

Cole v. Clarke, 641 N.W.2d 412 (Neb. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “On September 29, this court dismissed Cole’s appeal, based on Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-705 (6) (Supp. 1999).”

Mann v. Mann, 978 N.W.2d 606 (Neb. 2022). “275 between the undesirability of piecemeal appeals and the poten- tial need for making review available at a time that best serves the needs of the parties.”

Nebraska Popcorn, Inc. v. Wing, 602 N.W.2d 18 (Neb. 1999). · cites it 2× “The trial court found that the evidence was undisputed that Nebraska Popcorn’s action, filed February 18, 1997, was not brought within 4 years after tender of delivery on October 19, 1992, and that the warranty given by Cardinal on the motor truck scale did not extend the 4-year…”

Show all 22 citing cases →

— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-705(6) — 10 cases

Bargmann v. State, Dept. of Roads, 600 N.W.2d 797 (Neb. 1999). “Of further interest but not directly applicable in this case is Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-705 (6) (Cum. Supp. 1998), effective July 15, 1998.”

Shlien v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Nebraska, 640 N.W.2d 643 (Neb. 2002). “The district court entered judgment in favor of the University and against Shlien pursuant to the then applicable Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-705 (6) (Supp. 1999), now found at Neb.”

Tri-Par Investments, L.L.C. v. Sousa, 680 N.W.2d 190 (Neb. 2004). “Tri-Par appealed the order, and the Nebraska Court of Appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the district court’s order did not adjudicate all the claims of all the parties and, therefore, was not a final, appealable order under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-705 (6) (Supp.…”

Scottsdale Ins. v. City of Lincoln, 617 N.W.2d 806 (Neb. 2000). “In this appeal, we take the opportunity to remind the practicing bar of the effect of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-705 (6) (Cum. Supp. 1998), which became effective July 15,1998.”

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.