(1) When any court in the State of Nebraska has entered of record a decree of adoption prior to August 27, 1949, it shall be conclusively presumed that such adoption and all instruments and proceedings in connection therewith are valid in all respects notwithstanding some defect or defects may appear on the face of the record, or the absence of any record of such court, unless an action shall be brought within two years from August 27, 1949, attacking its validity.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in the Nebraska Indian Child Welfare Act, when any court in the State of Nebraska has entered of record a decree of adoption, it shall in like manner be conclusively presumed that the adoption and all instruments and proceedings in connection therewith are valid in all respects notwithstanding some defect or defects may appear on the face of the record, or the absence of any record of such court, unless an action is brought within two years from the entry of such decree of adoption attacking its validity.
Notes of Decisions
In Re Adoption of Kenten H., 725 N.W.2d 548 (Neb. 2007).
· cites it 7× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-116 (Reissue 2004). A party may challenge an adoption on the ground of fraud within the 2-year limitations period of § 43-116.”
In Re Adoption of Trystyn D., 611 N.W.2d 112 (Neb. 2000).
· cites it 18× “The court found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion and, in the alternative, that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-116 (Reissue 1993) statutorily barred reopening of the decree in the absence of “clearly proven fraud.”
In Re Adoption of Hemmer, 619 N.W.2d 848 (Neb. 2000).
· cites it 9× “2000), or (3) Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-116 (Reissue 1998). Brief for appellant at 4.”
In Re Adoption of Trystyn D., 600 N.W.2d 508 (Neb. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 12× “INTRODUCTION This case presents the issue of whether the doctrine of equitable estoppel is available to estop a party'from asserting the 2-year limitation period in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-116 (Reissue 1993) as a defense to an action attacking the validity of an adoption decree…”
In Re Adoption of Hiatt, 62 N.W.2d 123 (Neb. 1954).
“” § 43-116, R. R. S. 1943. The decree of adoption here was entered September 17, 1949.”
Syrovatka Ex Rel. Syrovatka v. Graham, 208 N.W.2d 281 (Neb. 1973).
· cites it 2× “1943, provides, so far as material herein: “When any county court in the State of Nebraska shall * * * hereafter enter of record such a decree of adoption, it shall in like manner be conclusively presumed that said adoption and all instruments and proceedings in connection…”
In re Adoption of Shaylynn V., 32 Neb. Ct. App. 642 (Neb. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 9× “When a party claims that procedural defects affect the validity of an adoption decree and seeks relief within 2 years of the entry of the adoption decree, the county court has authority over the matter pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-116 (Reissue 2016). Appeal from the County…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-116(1) — 1 case
In Re Adoption of Hemmer, 619 N.W.2d 848 (Neb. 2000).
“2000), or (3) Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-116 (Reissue 1998). Brief for appellant at 4.”
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.