(1) In an action for damages for the publication of a libel or for invasion of privacy as provided by section 20-204 by any medium, the plaintiff shall recover no more than special damages unless correction was requested as herein provided and was not published. Within twenty days after knowledge of the publication, plaintiff shall have given each defendant a notice by certified or registered mail specifying the statements claimed to be libelous or to have invaded privacy as provided by section 20-204 and specifically requesting correction. Publication of a correction shall be made within three weeks after receipt of the request. It shall be made in substantially as conspicuous a manner as the original publication about which complaint was made. A correction, published prior to receipt of a request therefor, shall have the same force and effect as if published after such request. The term special damages, as used in this section, shall include only such damages as plaintiff alleges and proves were suffered in respect to his or her property, business, trade, profession, or occupation as the direct and proximate result of the defendant's publication.
(2) This section shall not apply if it is alleged and proved that the publication was prompted by actual malice, and actual malice shall not be inferred or presumed from the publication.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1969–2024 · leading case:
Haffke v. Signal 88, 306 Neb. 625 (Neb. 2020).
Haffke v. Signal 88, 306 Neb. 625 (Neb. 2020).
· cites it 20× “625 court should not have reached the issue of whether he suffi- ciently pleaded or proved special damages on his defamation claim when Signal 88 did not raise compliance with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-840.01 (Reissue 2016) as an affirmative defense.”
Funk v. Lincoln-Lancaster Cty. Crime Stoppers, 885 N.W.2d 1 (Neb. 2016).
· cites it 11× “The City did not allege that Funk had failed to request a retrac- tion and was therefore limited to special damages pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-840.01 (Reissue 2008).”
Palmtag v. Repub. Party of Neb., 999 N.W.2d 573 (Neb. 2024).
· cites it 7× “Palmtag alleged that pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-840.01 (Reissue 2016), she was not limited to special damages because the Party declined to correct the defamatory statements after timely demand.”
Vodehnal v. Grand Island Daily Indep., 218 N.W.2d 220 (Neb. 1974).
· cites it 8× “" Section 25-840.01, R.R.S.1943, provides in part: "(1) In an action for damages for the publication of a libel by any medium, the plaintiff shall recover no more than special damages, unless correction was requested, as herein provided, and was not published.”
Whitcomb v. Nebraska State Educ. Ass'n, 165 N.W.2d 99 (Neb. 1969).
· cites it 16× “1943, which was also added to the statute in 1957, and which, in the absence of actual malice limits recovery to special damages as therein defined, unless correction is requested as set out therein. We assume, therefore, that plaintiff's cause of action is predicated on actual…”
Turner v. Welliver, 411 N.W.2d 298 (Neb. 1987).
· cites it 3× “Finally, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-840.01 (Reissue 1985) provides in pertinent part as follows: (1) In an action for damages for the publication of a libel or for invasion of privacy as provided by section *286 20-204 by any medium, the plaintiff shall recover no more than special…”
Young v. First United Bank of Bellevue, 516 N.W.2d 256 (Neb. 1994).
· cites it 4× “He further alleged that within 20 days, he had sent a demand for correction pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-840.01 (Reissue 1989).”
Nolan v. Campbell, 690 N.W.2d 638 (Neb. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “” As to the three publications, Nolan sent a retraction request for each of them pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-840.01 (Reissue 1995).”
Norris v. Hathaway, 561 N.W.2d 583 (Neb. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “In July and August 1993, Norris’ counsel sent Hathaway two retraction demand letters on Norris’ behalf pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-840.01 (Reissue 1995).”
Bowley v. W.S.A., Inc., 645 N.W.2d 512 (Neb. 2002).
· cites it 2× “” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-840.01 (Reissue 1995).”
Adams v. Best W. Int'l, Inc. (D. Neb. 2024).
· cites it 2× “His lawyer demanded “a retraction in accordance with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-840.01 .” None came.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-840.01(1) — 1 case
Palmtag v. Repub. Party of Neb., 999 N.W.2d 573 (Neb. 2024).
“Palmtag alleged that pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-840.01 (Reissue 2016), she was not limited to special damages because the Party declined to correct the defamatory statements after timely demand.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-840.01(2) — 1 case
Palmtag v. Repub. Party of Neb., 999 N.W.2d 573 (Neb. 2024).
“Palmtag alleged that pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-840.01 (Reissue 2016), she was not limited to special damages because the Party declined to correct the defamatory statements after timely demand.”
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.