Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207

Section 25-207 imposes a four-year limitations period on Nebraska tort claims.

Snodgrass v. Roberts Dairy Co. · filed 1979-04-24

On September 28, 1977, the four year statute of limitations on tort claims arising within the State of Nebraska ran out. Neb. Rev.Stat. § 25-207 (Reissue 1975).

Section 25-207’s four-year limitations period applies to fraudulent-conveyance actions, but not to an equitable-assets creditor’s action based on an invalid trust.

FIRST NAT. BANK IN MITCHELL v. Daggett · filed 1993-03-12

We agree with the defendants’ interpretation of the law; if FNB had brought suit based solely on allegations of fraudulent conveyances, § 25-207 would apply. ... This non-fraud ground falls outside the ambit of § 25-207.

Section 25-207 gave the plaintiff four years from the date of the damage to file his negligence action.

Morris v. Chrysler Corp. · filed 1981-03-20

The municipal court correctly held that the appellant had 4 years from the date of the damage to file his action. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 (Reissue 1975).

Section 25-207 provides a four-year period for an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, even when the conduct could also support an assault and battery claim.

Mindt v. Shavers · filed 1983-07-15

It is conceded that the action was not filed within 1 year but was filed within 4 years, the appropriate time for filing an action for either an intentional tort or negligence. See Neb. Rev. Stat. §25-207 (Reissue 1979). ... It is clear that the action was pled and tried as one arising out of the intentional tort of causing severe emotional distress and not as an assault and battery. Shavers’ contention, therefore, that the suit was barred by the statute of limitations is simply without merit and must be overruled.

Section 25-207 gives a tort claim four years to be filed, absent a reason to toll the limitations period.

Mangan v. Landen · filed 1985-04-05

Whether one concludes that the cause of action concocted by Mangan sounds in tort and is therefore covered by the provisions of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 (Reissue 1979) or more appropriately falls within the provisions of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-212 (Reissue 1979) for the reason that it is an action not otherwise specified, it is clear that, absent some reason to toll the statute of limitations, any action relying on a contract entered into by the parties on March 6, 1978, must be filed within 4 years from that date.

Section 25-207(4) allows four years to bring a fraud claim, measured from discovery of the fraud; a claim filed after that period requires grounds for tolling.

League v. Vanice · filed 1985-10-18(4)

In view of the allegations in League’s fourth cause of action, if the questioned payment occurred on April 21, 1979, or earlier, an action based on such payment is barred unless there is an excuse tolling the statute of limitations. On the other hand, if the questioned payments) occurred on or after April 22, 1979, League has filed his action within the time prescribed for commencement of the action as alleged.

Section 25-207(4) requires fraud actions to be brought within four years of discovery; an amended fraud claim based on the same operative facts as the original petition is not a new cause of action.

Forker Solar, Inc. v. Knoblauch · filed 1986-11-21(4)

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207(4) (Reissue 1985) requires all actions sounding in fraud to be brought within 4 years of the discovery of the fraud. ... The plaintiff modified its theory of recovery in the amended petition but did not state a new and independent cause of action.

Section 25-207 requires fraud actions to be brought within four years unless the defrauded party could not discover the fraud earlier; a party filing later must show an impediment to earlier discovery.

Giove v. Stanko · filed 1992-11-17

Nebraska's statute of limitations mandates that actions for fraud must be brought within four years of the fraud, unless the defrauded party did not discover the fraud earlier. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-207. The defrauded party must show an impediment to earlier discovery if it is bringing its action more than four years after the fact.

Section 25-207 provides the general four-year limitations period for negligence actions, but a more specific limitations statute takes precedence when it applies.

Murphy v. Spelts-Schultz Lumber Co. · filed 1992-03-20

Consequently, the general statute of limitations for a negligence action, that is, § 25-207, is superseded by § 25-222 (negligence in professional services) and by § 25-223 (negligent construction of an improvement on real estate).

Section 25-207 gives negligence actions a four-year limitations period.

Jarrett v. Eichler · filed 1993-10-15

In this state, a negligence cause of action is subject to a 4-year statute of limitations. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 (Reissue 1989). Appellee’s negligence action arose from an accident that occurred on February 9, 1984, and the district court dismissed the action for a lack of prosecution on February 2, 1990. After appellee’s action was dismissed, appellee could not maintain a successful negligence action against appellant because appellant could have prevailed on a statute of limitations defense.

Section 25-207 gives a plaintiff four years to sue for injury to rights not arising on contract, starting when the plaintiff has the right to sue.

Hickman v. Hunkins · filed 1992-04-07

The 4-year statute of limitations applies to actions for injury to the rights of plaintiffs not arising on contract. § 25-207. ... The cause of action arose May 3 or 4, 1983. ... The action against the Township was time barred.

Section 25-207 gives a plaintiff 4 years to bring an action for injury to the plaintiff’s rights that does not arise out of contract.

Calvert v. Roberts Dairy Co. · filed 1993-03-05

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 (Reissue 1989), provides that an action for an injury to the rights of the plaintiff not arising out of contract may only be brought within 4 years. The petition in this case was filed within 4 years of the accident and therefore on the face of the petition the action is not barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

Section 25-207 gives four years to bring injury-to-rights and fraud actions, and a fraud claim accrues upon discovery of the fraud.

Fulk v. McLellan · filed 1993-04-02(3), (4)

If a 4-year statute of limitations is applied, neither cause of action was barred under the facts as alleged. Where, as here, the petition does not disclose on its face that it is barred by the statute of limitations, defendant must plead the statute and has the burden of proving the affirmative defense.

Section 25-207(2) provides a four-year limitations period for a negligence action against an individual political-subdivision employee when the applicable tort-claims provision sets no deadline for filing suit.

Gatewood v. Powell · filed 1993-04-27(2)

Gatewood’s negligence action against Powell is controlled by the 4-year statute of limitations found in § 25-207(2) and is not time barred.

Section 25-207 provides a four-year limitations period for actions alleging injury to a plaintiff’s rights, including § 1983 actions.

Bauers v. City of Lincoln · filed 1994-04-15

Additionally, we find that the firefighters’ § 1983 actions are not subject to the filing requirements of § 15-840; these actions, however, are subject to the 4-year statute of limitations set forth in § 25-207.

Section 25-207(2) provides four years from accrual to bring a claim for recovery of personal property; the claim accrued when the owner knew or should have discovered its basis.

Lon W. Keim, M.D. v. Louisiana Historical Association Confederate War Museum, a Louisiana Nonprofit Corporation · filed 1995-04-05(2)

Nebraska’s statute of limitations provides for a period of four years from the daté the cause of action accrues. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-207(2). ... Accordingly, the cause of action for recovery of the flag accrued, and the applicable statute of limitations started to run, no later than 1975 when the Museum either knew of or should have discovered the basis for its cause of action. Therefore, the Museum’s counterclaim seeking possession of the flag, which was filed on November 20, 1991; some sixteen years after the cause of action accrued, is now barred.

Section 25-207 requires an action for injury to a person’s rights that does not arise from a contract to be brought within four years.

Whitten v. Whitten · filed 1996-06-07

An action for an injury to the rights of the plaintiff, not arising on contract, can only be brought within 4 years. § 25-207. The record reflects that the plaintiff brought this negligence action more than 5 years after the date that he alleged the accident occurred. As a result, his lawsuit against the defendant was barred by Nebraska’s statute of limitations.

Section 25-207 provides a four-year limitations period for breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims.

Great Rivers Cooperative v. Farmland Industries, Inc. · filed 1996-07-03

Nebraska has a four-year statute of limitations. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-207. ... Nebraska law would not “fully bar” the claim for purposes of the Missouri borrowing statute, and Missouri’s own limitations period, without applying their borrowing statute, would not bar the claim.

Section 25-207 supports dismissal with prejudice when the limitations period for a motor vehicle accident claim has run.

Forrest v. Eilenstine · filed 1996-10-29

Finally, the dismissal was appropriately “with prejudice” because the statute of limitations for Forrest’s claim arising out of the August 13, 1989, motor vehicle accident had already run. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 (Reissue 1995).

Section 25-207's four-year limitations period applies to a negligence claim arising from an automobile accident; once the period expired and the defendant had not been timely served, the plaintiff could not recover on that claim.

STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. INS. v. Allstate Ins. · filed 2004-07-23

Because Campbell was not served within 6 months of the date the petition was filed in the underlying action, and given that the 4-year statute of limitations on Steenson's negligence claim against Campbell has run, Steenson cannot recover from Campbell on the basis alleged in his petition in the underlying action and Harvey's insurance carrier, Allstate, has no obligation to defend or indemnify.

Section 25-207(3) provides a four-year limitations period for personal injury claims, which applies to § 1983 claims arising in Nebraska.

Biby v. Board of Regents of University of Neb. at Lincoln · filed 2004-09-29(3)

The plaintiff filed this action on June 6, 2003, just missing the four-year statute of limitations. As a consequence, the court must grant the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs due process claim for deprivation of property rights in connection with the patent.

Section 25-207 gives a plaintiff four years to bring a negligence claim; knowledge imputed to the plaintiff can start that period despite an allegedly continuing course of conduct.

Grassmueck v. American Shorthorn Ass'n · filed 2005-03-22(3)

The Court finds that the Hoyts’ knowledge of their own fraud is imputed to the Partnership Entities, and it was that fraud which gave rise to the allegedly-negligent acts and omissions by the Defendants. Under any calculation, therefore, the limitations period expired well before the Complaint was filed on November 3, 2000.

Section 25-207 provides a four-year limitations period for the tort claims at issue.

Ashokkumar v. Elbaum · filed 2013-03-15

The relevant statute of limitations for all of the plaintiffs tort claims is 4 years. See, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-207; Montin v. Estate of Johnson, 636 F.3d 409, 412-13 (8th Cir.2011).

Section 25-207(3) gives a plaintiff four years to bring claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, and abuse of process.

Blair v. Dory · filed 2014-07-22(3)

The statute of limitations on claims for false arrest/false imprisonment and abuse of process is set out in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207(3) (Reissue 2008), which provides that actions for an injury to the rights of the plaintiff not arising on contract must be brought within 4 years.

Section 25-207 provides a four-year limitations period for common-law tort and fraud claims, including claims against financial advisers and broker-dealers.

Ponec v. Guy Strevey & Assocs. · filed 2017-02-07

As set forth above, the 4-year SoL set forth in § 25-207 is applicable to the Ponecs’ claims against Strevey and HTK and the district court did not err in its determinations with respect to the running of that SoL or in finding no applicable tolling exception.

Section 25-207 provides four years to bring a tort damages action; with minority tolling under § 25-213, that period had expired before the plaintiffs filed suit.

Doe v. McCoy · filed 2017-07-28

The district court determined that the only applicable statutes of limitations in this case were § 25-207, which provides that an action for tort damages must be brought within 4 years after the action accrues, and § 25-213, which provides that if the plaintiff is a minor at the time the tort cause of action accrues, the statutes of limitations are tolled until the plaintiff reaches age 21. ... Because the applicable statutes of limitations on the plaintiffs’ action against McCoy had run in 2010, and because § 25-228 did not extend the period of limitations for actions that had already been barred when it was enacted in 2012, we conclude that the district court did not err when it determined that the plaintiffs’ action was barred when they filed their complaint in 2016.

Section 25-207(3) requires an action for injury to a plaintiff’s rights that does not arise from contract to be brought within four years.

Gardner v. Burkley Envelope Co. · filed 2018-04-03(3)

Section 25-207 provides that “[t]he following actions can only be brought within four years: . . . (3) an action for an injury to the rights of the plaintiff not arising on contract . . . .” Gardner’s complaint shows on its face that the cause of action arose on April 16, 2009. He did not file his action until December 8, 2016, more than 7 years later. Thus, the complaint, on its face, is barred by the statute of limitations.

Section 25-207 bars personal injury actions not commenced within four years.

Babbitt v. Hronik · filed 2001-03-30

Section 25-207 bars all actions for personal injury not commenced within 4 years.

Section 25-207 sets a four-year limitations period for personal injury tort actions.

Kotlarz v. Olson Bros., Inc. · filed 2007-10-09

The suit was filed 4 days before the statute of limitations for a personal injury action such as this would have run. See Neb. Rev.Stat. § 25-207 (Reissue 1995). ... Therefore, the statute of limitations bars the Kotlarzes' suit against PMC, the joint venture.

Section 25-207(3) provides a four-year limitations period for tort actions.

Hatchett v. K & B Transportation, Inc. · filed 2003-04-01(3)

Plaintiff seeks to avail himself of the longer, four-year Nebraska statute of limitations applicable to tort actions. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-207(3). ... Plaintiff having skillfully navigated his way through the above-described procedural maze, the Court concludes the four-year Nebraska statute of limitations applies to his claim.

Section 25-207 provides a four-year limitations period for public policy-based retaliatory discharge claims because they sound in tort.

Wendeln v. the Beatrice Manor, Inc. · filed 2006-04-07

We agree that a public policy-based retaliatory discharge claim is based in tort. Accordingly, such a claim is governed by the general 4-year statute of limitations period found in § 25-207.

Section 25-207(3) gives negligence claims a four-year limitations period that generally begins when the injurious act or omission occurs.

Marmo v. Tyson Fresh Meats · filed 2006-08-03(3)

Under Nebraska law, a four-year statute of limitations applies to negligence claims. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207(3). The statute of limitations in a negligence action generally commences when the injurious act or omission occurs.

Section 25-207 supplies a four-year limitations period for the § 1983 claims at issue.

Winslow v. Smith · filed 2009-11-25

The applicable limitations period is four years.

Section 25-207 provides a four-year limitations period for survival actions seeking damages for predeath pain and suffering.

Corona De Camargo v. Schon · filed 2009-12-04

There being no particular statute of limitations set forth for survival actions described in § 25-1401, we conclude that the applicable statute of limitations is the 4-year period set forth in § 25-207. Since the evidence is that Maria filed her survival actions within 4 years, the district court erred in dismissing those claims as barred by the statute of limitations.

Section 25-207(3) gives negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims a four-year limitations period.

Keith v. Data Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2019-03-19(3)

The statute of limitations for negligence and negligent misrepresentation is 4 years. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207(3) (Reissue 2016). ... We agree with the district court that counts I, II, III, and V are barred by their applicable statute of limitations.

Section 25-207(3) sets a four-year limitations period for negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims.

Keith v. Data Enters. · filed 2019-03-19(3)

The statute of limitations for negligence and negligent misrepresentation is 4 years. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207(3) (Reissue 2016).

Section 25-207 supplies the general limitations period for negligence claims against massage therapists.

Wehrer v. Dynamic Life Therapy & Wellness, P.C. · filed 2019-04-25

As such, Wehrer contends that the general statute of limitations for neg- ligence actions under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 (Reissue 2016) applies. We agree.

Section 25-207’s general negligence limitations period applies to claims arising from massage therapy because massage therapists are not professionals under § 25-222.

Wehrer v. Dynamic Life Therapy & Wellness · filed 2019-04-25

As such, Wehrer contends that the general statute of limitations for neg- ligence actions under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 (Reissue 2016) applies. We agree.

Section 25-207 gives tort claims a four-year limitations period unless another statute specifies otherwise.

Infante v. City of Hastings · filed 2019-11-12

Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 (Reissue 2016), tort claims are subject to a 4-year statute of limitations unless otherwise specified.

Section 25-207(3) supplies a four-year limitations period for § 1983 claims arising in Nebraska.

Petitphait v. Officer Christensen 1632 · filed 2020-01-15(3)

In Nebraska, § 1983 actions are subject to a four-year statute of limitations.

Section 25-207 sets a four-year limitations period for Nebraska tort claims.

Lightfeather v. City of Lincoln · filed 2021-03-08

As indicated above, the general statute of limitations for tort claims in Nebraska is 4 years. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207. Any state-law tort claim against Drue L. Bower that accrued in 2014 is therefore time-barred.

Section 25-207 supplies a four-year limitations period for § 1983 claims brought in Nebraska.

Bordeaux v. Bicknase · filed 2021-04-22

See Montin v. Estate of Johnson, 636 F.3d 409, 412 (8th Cir. 2011) (applying a four-year statute of limitation to a § 1983 claim under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207). ... Bordeaux’s claims against Hunzeker are untimely, and she has not identified any viable basis to relate them back or toll the limitation period.

Section 25-207 gives a negligence claim arising from a vehicle accident a four-year limitations period.

Davis v. Ridder · filed 2021-08-06

There is no dispute that a 4-year statute of limitations applies to Davis’ claim against Limpach. See § 25-207. ... Accordingly, the amended complaint did not relate back and Limpach was entitled to summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds.

Section 25-207 supplies a four-year limitations period for § 1983 claims arising in Nebraska.

Zierke v. Molsen · filed 2022-02-15(3)

In Nebraska, § 1988 actions are subject to a 4-year statute of limitations. See Montin v. Estate of Johnson, 636 F.3d 409, 412-13 (8th Cir. 2011); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 ... Thus, Zierke’s section 1983 claims against Molsen accrued well over four years before he filed the present action on September 21, 2021, and his claims are barred by the statute of limitations.

Section 25-207’s four-year limitations period expired before the amended complaint was filed, so the amendment must relate back to the original complaint to avoid dismissal.

AOK LLC v. Sussenbach · filed 2022-11-22

Because the statute of limitations expired before the amended complaint was filed, this action is subject to dismissal unless the amended complaint relates back to the filing of the original complaint.

Section 25-207 provides a four-year limitations period for § 1983 claims arising in Nebraska, beginning when the claim accrues.

Bordeaux v. Bicknase · filed 2023-08-04

Under Nebraska law, Bordeaux had four years to sue after her cause of action accrued. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207; Montin v. Est. of Johnson, 636 F.3d 409, 412 (8th Cir. 2011). ... When Bordeaux sought to sue Hunzeker in December 2020, more than four years later, her claims were time-barred.

Section 25-207(3) provides a four-year period from accrual for personal injury actions under Nebraska law.

Griffith v. LG Chem America · filed 2024-02-09(3)

In contrast, Nebraska requires that personal injury actions be brought within 4 years of the accrual of the cause of action. See §§ 25-207(3) and 25-224(1).

Section 25-207(3) supplies a four-year limitations period for § 1983 claims arising in Nebraska.

Swisher v. Norris · filed 2025-03-25(3)

In Nebraska, section 1983 actions are subject to a four-year statute of limitations.

Section 25-207 supplies a four-year limitations period for § 1983 claims analogous to common law intentional torts.

Summers v. Curd · filed 2025-03-28

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 creates a four-year limitation period for “an action for an injury to the rights of the plaintiff, not arising on contract, and not hereinafter enumerated.” Here, Summers’s allegations are analogous to a common law intentional tort and would, thus, fall within the scope of § 25-207.

Section 25-207 supplies a four-year limitations period for § 1983 claims arising in Nebraska.

Lindberg v. State of Nebraska · filed 2025-06-25

In Nebraska, § 1983 actions are limited by a four-year statute of limitations. See Montin v. Estate of Johnson, 636 F.3d 409, 412–13 (8th Cir. 2011); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207. ... Because Plaintiff’s civil rights claims against Defendants accrued more than four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit, they are barred by the statute of limitations and must be dismissed.

Section 25-207 provides a four-year limitations period for claims involving injury to a plaintiff’s rights that do not arise from a contract.

Gable · filed 2026-01-30

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 creates a four-year limitation period for “an action for an injury to the rights of the plaintiff, not arising on contract, and not hereinafter enumerated.” Here, Plaintiff’s claims needed to be filed no later than four years after the claims accrued.

Section 25-207(3) sets a four-year limitations period for tortious assault claims.

Fry v. Doane University · filed 2019-12-11(3)

The four-year statute of limitations in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207(3) applies to Fry’s tortious assault claim.

Section 25-207 provides a four-year limitations period for survival claims.

Hunter v. Whisler Aviation, Inc. · filed 2019-12-27

The statute of limitations for a survival claim is four years.

Section 25-207 provides a four-year limitations period for survival claims.

Cocke v. Whisler Aviation Inc. · filed 2019-12-27

The statute of limitations for a survival claim is four years.

Section 25-207 gives a plaintiff four years to bring a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Kitchen v. Developmental Services of Nebraska, Inc. · filed 2023-01-18

Plaintiff’s cause of action for emotional distress, which is construed as a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is subject to the four year statute of limitations under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207.

Section 25-207(3) sets a four-year limitations period for negligence actions.

Bruce v. Ahrendt · filed 2026-04-14(3)

The SOL for negligence is 4 years. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207(3) (Reissue 2016). ... Bruce filed the current complaint against Ahrendt on June 14, 2024, more than 4 years after the accident, making it time barred unless an exception applies to toll the running of the SOL.

Section 25-207 gives a plaintiff four years to file a negligence claim arising from an automobile accident.

Smeal v. Olson · filed 2001-12-11

Smeal filed his petition in the district court for Buffalo County on December 15, 1998, 1 day before the statute of limitations would have barred his claim under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 (Reissue 1995). ... The son moved for summary judgment, and the record clearly shows that he was sued outside the statute of limitations and served outside the grace period.

Section 25-207 gives a plaintiff four years after discovery of fraud to bring an action for fraud.

Calvert Fire Insurance v. Unigard Mutual Insurance · filed 1980-10-09

Under Nebraska law, an action for fraud must be brought within four (4) years after the discovery of the fraud. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-207 (Reissue 1975). ... The four year limitations statute on fraud could not commence to run until plaintiffs were informed of the extent of Unigard’s misrepresentations.

Section 25-207(4) requires a fraud action to be filed within four years after the plaintiff has sufficient information to discover the fraud.

Broekemeier Ford, Inc. v. Clatanoff · filed 1992-03-20(4)

Although the district court may have shared our skepticism about Broekemeiers’ version of events leading to the lawsuit, the evidence is such that we are unable to state that the district court was clearly erroneous in its conclusion that Broekemeiers possessed sufficient information to constitute discovery of the alleged fraud and require their filing of an action for fraud within 4 years after May 23,1979, the date on which the parties closed the sale of dealership property.

Section 25-207(4) gives a plaintiff four years to bring a fraud claim, measured from discovery of the fraud.

Henderson v. Forman · filed 1992-06-26(4)

However, because this case will have to be retried, we observe that the limitations period applicable to a tort action for fraud is 4 years. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207(4) (Reissue 1989). The 4-year period is deemed to accrue upon discovery of the fraud.

Section 25-207 requires a fraud action within four years unless the claimant could not have discovered the fraud earlier; knowledge of facts from which fraud could reasonably be inferred counts as discovery.

Giove v. Stanko · filed 1992-10-02

Nebraska’s statute of limitations mandates that actions for fraud must be brought within four years of the fraud, unless- the defrauded party did not discover the fraud earlier. ... However, the district court correctly found that she was put on inquiry notice of the transfers as early as November 6, 1984, by a letter she received during settlement negotiations with Rudy Stanko which mentioned substantial asset transfers from Rudy Stanko to Jeanne Stanko.

Section 25-207(4) delays accrual of a fraud action until the fraud is discovered.

Association of Commonwealth v. Moylan · filed 1994-06-03(4)

With regard to appellant’s actions based on fraud, we recognize that although appellant’s petition does not address when it discovered the fraudulent acts, § 25-207 provides that such actions are not deemed to have accrued until discovery of the fraud.

Section 25-207(4) gives a person four years to bring a fraud claim, beginning when the person discovers the fraud or facts that would lead to its discovery through inquiry.

Grand Island Express, a Corporation v. Timpte Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Formerly Known as Timpte, Inc. · filed 1994-06-30(4)

In Nebraska an action for fraud is subject to a four-year statute of limitations which begins to run upon “discovery of the fraud or of facts sufficient to put a person on inquiry, which, if pursued, would lead to discovery.” Grand Island School Dist., 279 N.W.2d at 608; Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-207(4). Because Grand Island possessed sufficient facts by August 21, 1987, to put it on notice of the alleged fraud, these claims are barred.

Section 25-207(4) gives a person four years to bring a fraud claim, beginning when they discover the fraud or facts that would prompt a prudent person to investigate it.

BOWLING ASSOCIATES, LTD. v. Kerrey · filed 1997-05-09(4)

Pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207(4) (Reissue 1995), an action for relief on the ground of fraud can only be brought within 4 years. Such action does not accrue, however, until there has been a discovery of the facts constituting the fraud, or facts sufficient to put a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence on an inquiry which, if pursued, would lead to such discovery. ... We therefore conclude as a matter of law that appellants were on notice when they received the financial statements in 1984 and affirm the district court’s decision to grant appellees’ motion for summary judgment as to appellants’ second cause of action.

Section 25-207 requires a fraud action to be commenced within four years after the cause of action accrues.

Cedars Corp. v. Sun Valley Development Co. · filed 1983-03-04

Therefore, on its face, it appears that the cause of action, if indeed it existed, accrued at the latest in 1962. Cedars was therefore required to commence this action for alleged fraud within 4 years after that date or be forever barred.

Section 25-207 bars an untimely fraud counterclaim seeking affirmative relief but does not bar a fraud-based defense of recoupment.

Ed Miller & Sons, Inc. v. Earl · filed 1993-07-09

Therefore, although Earl’s defense of recoupment based on misrepresentation is not barred by the statute of limitations, Earl’s counterclaim for misrepresentation is barred by the statute of limitations in § 25-207.

Section 25-207(4) gives a person four years to bring a fraud action, starting when the fraud was discovered or reasonably could have been discovered, even when the action concerns real estate.

McGinley v. McGinley · filed 1998-07-28(4)

Because the specific cause of action in the petition is one for fraud, the statute which applies in this instance is the 4-year statute of limitations found in § 25-207. ... Therefore, under the discovery rule, the cause of action arose in October 1991 because at that time Joan either did discover the fraud or could have discovered the fraud.

Section 25-207(4) gives a plaintiff four years to bring a fraud action, beginning when the plaintiff discovers the fraud or facts that would lead a prudent person to discover it.

NECO, Inc. v. Larry Price & Associates, Inc. · filed 1999-07-23(4)

Pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207(4) (Reissue 1995), an action for fraud must be brought within 4 years of when the cause of action accrues. Such action does not accrue, however, until there has been a discovery of the facts constituting the fraud, or facts sufficient to put a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence on an inquiry which, if pursued, would lead to such discovery.

Section 25-207 gives fraud claims four years to be filed, beginning when the fraud is discovered.

Certified Moving & Storage Company, LLC v. Applied Underwriters, Inc. · filed 2022-05-02

In fraud claims, the statute begins to run upon “discovery of the fraud.” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 (providing that the cause of action of fraud “shall not be deemed to have accrued until the discovery of fraud”). ... Accordingly, the “discovery of the fraud” occurred on June 21, 2021, which is within the four-year statute of limitations.

Section 25-207(4) gives a plaintiff four years to bring a fraud action, with the period beginning upon discovery of the fraud.

Hohenstein v. Hohenstein · filed 2023-08-15(4)

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207(4) (Reissue 2016) provides that an action on the ground of fraud can only be brought within 4 years, but the cause of action in such case shall not be deemed to have accrued until the discovery of the fraud.

For a decedent’s fraud claim, § 25-207(4)’s four-year discovery rule turns on what the decedent knew or should have known, and the personal representative must plead why the decedent could not have discovered the fraud during the limitations period.

Stengel v. Heartland Bank · filed 2025-02-25(4)

Stated differently, as Heartland Bank notes in their brief, what Stengel knew or discovered does not avoid the 4-year statute of limitations of § 25-207(4). Rather, the inquiry is on what Dale knew or should have known. ... Stengel was required to plead why Dale, who sought to invoke the discovery clause of § 25-207(4), could not have discovered the cause of action during the limitations period.

Section 25-207(4) gives a claim for relief on the ground of fraud four years from discovery of the fraud because the claim does not accrue before then.

Konecne v. Abram, LLC · filed 2025-09-26(4)

The statute of limitations for Abram’s claim for fraud- ulent concealment is found in § 25-207(4), which provides that the 4-year limitations period applies to “an action for relief on the ground of fraud, but the cause of action in such case shall not be deemed to have accrued until the discovery of the fraud.”

A fraud claim under § 25-207(4) accrues when the plaintiff discovers the fraud or facts that would lead a reasonably prudent person to discover it through inquiry.

Sebade v. Sebade · filed 2025-12-05(4)

Thus, we have explained that, pursuant to § 25-207(4), an action for fraud does not accrue until there has been a dis- covery of the facts constituting the fraud, or facts sufficient to put a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence on an inquiry which, if pursued, would lead to such discovery.

Section 25-207’s four-year period for a reformation claim based on mutual mistake runs from when reasonable diligence would have disclosed the mistake.

Newton v. Brown · filed 1986-05-02

We find nothing from the conduct of any parties or attendant circumstances which indicates that the mutual mistake was discoverable by reasonable diligence before such mistake was actually discovered in 1983. The action was not barred by § 25-207.

Section 25-207 gives a tortious interference claim four years to be filed and has no discovery rule for such claims.

Hroch v. Farmland Industries, Inc. · filed 1996-05-28

Section 25-207 does not provide for a discovery rule for tortious interference; neither has the Nebraska Supreme Court created a discovery rule exception to the general rule stated in Omaha Paper Stock Co., Inc. for cases of tortious interference.

Section 25-207 gives a plaintiff four years to bring an action for trespass upon real property; filing an earlier action does not toll that period for a later action on the same facts.

Sluka v. Herman · filed 1988-07-15

Defendants, in their answer, alleged as a defense the running of the statute of limitations, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 (Reissue 1985), which restricts the bringing of an action for trespass upon real property to 4 years after the offending incident. ... Although authorities differ on this narrow issue of tolling, we feel that the better reasoned rule is that the filing of a petition does not toll the running of a statute of limitations for the purpose of bringing subsequent actions on the same set of facts, and we do so hold.

Section 25-207’s four-year limitations period bars a bankruptcy trustee’s action to set aside a fraudulent conveyance on creditors’ behalf when the period has expired; 11 U.S.C. § 108(a) does not extend it.

Wolf v. Degner · filed 1993-07-09

Because 11 U.S.C. § 108(a) did not toll the 4-year statute of limitations set forth in § 25-207, the statute of limitations prescribed by § 25-207 barred Wolf’s action as a trustee to set aside Doris’ deeds to Edgar.

Section 25-207’s four-year limitations period is not tolled by a creditor’s separate action involving different plaintiffs and theories of relief, even when the actions share operative facts.

Butler v. Bantz (In re Howe Grain, Inc.) · filed 1994-12-13

The limitations period of § 25-207 is four years. ... I conclude that the state court action did not toll the running of the statute of limitations for purposes of this case. Although both claims involve the same operative facts, the claims involve different plaintiffs and different theories of relief.

Section 25-207 gives actions based on mistake a four-year limitations period that runs from when the mistake was or reasonably should have been discovered.

Eisenhart v. Lobb · filed 2002-05-14

Under § 25-207, an action for relief from fraud must be brought within 4 years, but the cause of action does not accrue until the discovery of the fraud. ... Therefore, actions for accident or mistake, although not specifically mentioned in the statute, are classed with fraud and have a 4-year statute of limitations.

An amended petition naming a new defendant can relate back for purposes of § 25-207 if the defendant had the required notice during the four-year limitations period or the additional six-month period allowed for service of summons.

Smeal v. Olson · filed 2002-05-24

The Court of Appeals correctly determined that the relation-back doctrine would make Smeal’s claim against Rickard W. timely if it were shown that Rickard W. had notice of the suit by means other than service of process within a period which included the 4-year limitations period prescribed by § 25-207 plus the additional 6-month period for service of summons permitted by § 25-217.

Section 25-207 provides a four-year limitations period for § 1983 claims in Nebraska, and the continuing violations doctrine did not save claims that accrued earlier in these circumstances.

Poor Bear v. Nesbitt · filed 2004-01-29

Therefore, I find that the continuing violations doctrine is inapplicable and any of Poor Bear’s claims accruing before July 3, 1999, shall be dismissed as barred by the applicable statute of limitations, Neb. Rev.Stat. § 25-207.

Section 25-207(3) gives tort claims a four-year limitations period; when the discovery rule applies, the period runs once a claimant has enough facts to discover the injury with reasonable diligence.

Kraft v. St. John Lutheran Church of Seward · filed 2005-07-18(3)

Nebraska's four-year statute of limitations for tort actions, see Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207(3), is tolled for minors until they reach the age of 21, see Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-213; Brown v. Kindred, 608 N.W.2d 577, 580 (Neb. 2000). ... The fact that Kraft may not have actually drawn the connection at that point or may not have understood the extent of his damages did not prevent the statute of limitations from running. ... Thus, the discovery rule of equitable tolling does not preserve Kraft's cause of action.

Section 25-207(3) provides four years to bring an action for an injury to rights not arising from contract; later contact that is not wrongful does not extend that period under a continuing tort theory.

Anonymous v. St. John Lutheran Church · filed 2005-09-27(3)

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207(3) (Reissue 1995) sets forth a 4-year statute of limitations for “an action for an injury to the rights of the plaintiff, not arising on contract, and not hereinafter enumerated.” ... A “continuing tort doctrine” is inapplicable in the case before us. The alleged sexual abuse ceased in 1972. Although a counselor explained that each time Mannigel corresponded with Anonymous it was like “tearing the scab off of a wound,” Mannigel’s contact with Anonymous after that point — such as sending Anonymous cards and money and seeing her at her parent’s house — was not wrongful conduct in the legal sense and does not rise to the level needed to be actionable as an intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Section 25-207 permits recovery for continuing-tort damages that accrue within its four-year limitations period, even if the plaintiff discovered earlier injuries before that period.

Alston v. Hormel Foods Corp. · filed 2007-04-20

We conclude, therefore, that in a continuing tort case, where the discovery rule is not applicable, § 25-207 applies according to its terms: A claim for damages from a continuing tort may be brought to the extent that the claim accrued within the statutory limitations period.

Section 25-207(3) gives a plaintiff four years to bring an injury-to-rights claim; conclusory allegations of fraudulent concealment do not toll that period.

Chafin v. Wisconsin Province Society of Jesus · filed 2018-09-21(3)

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207(3) (Reissue 2016) sets forth a 4-year statute of limitations for “an action for an injury to the rights of the plaintiff, not aris- ing on contract, and not hereinafter enumerated.” ... Because Chafin failed to particularly allege fraudulent concealment, the statute of limitations did not toll.

Section 25-207(3) sets a four-year limit for injury-to-rights claims; fraudulent concealment can toll that limit if sufficiently pleaded.

Chafin v. Wis. Province of the Soc'y of Jesus · filed 2018-09-21(3)

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207(3) (Reissue 2016) sets forth a 4-year statute of limitations for "an action for an injury to the rights of the plaintiff, not arising on contract, and not hereinafter enumerated." ... Unless Chafin sufficiently pled fraudulent concealment, the statute of limitations began to run in 1969 when Chafin discovered the existence of her injury.

Section 25-207’s four-year limitations period does not bar claims based on conduct that continued into the four years before suit.

Estate of Joyce R. Petersen v. Bitters · filed 2020-04-03

The court also found that, insofar as these claims were based on the allegation that Bitters represented that he would seek repayment from Henry but did not do so, they stemmed from conduct that continued until 2013 and thus fell within both the two-year and four-year limitations periods. ... These findings are supported by the record, and Bitters cannot show that he was prejudiced by the district court’s instructions to the jury.

Section 25-207 gives an estate representative four years to bring an accounting claim; when the decedent knew of the transactions, the claim accrued with each transaction.

In re Estate of Adelung · filed 2020-07-31

The parties agree that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 (Reissue 2016) governs this proceeding. Under that statute, an action must be brought within 4 years. ... Thus, the cause of action accrued with each transaction. As personal representative, Heiden stands in the decedent’s shoes. The decedent’s knowledge binds the estate. Upon our de novo review, we conclude that the statute of limitations bars any recovery for money Adelung received prior to February 1, 2012.

Section 25-207(3) gives a plaintiff four years to bring an ordinary negligence action after the claim accrues; the period does not begin before the plaintiff is injured and can sue.

Susman v. Kearney Towing & Repair Ctr. · filed 2022-02-11(3)

To the extent the statement in Celotex Corp. could be interpreted as saying that the statute of limitations for claims covered by § 25-207(3) will begin to run upon the act or omission of the defendant, regardless of whether the plaintiff has yet been aggrieved by that misconduct, we find it inconsistent with other precedent and the controlling statutes and it is disapproved.

Section 25-207(3) sets a four-year limitations period for negligence actions.

Trausch v. Hagemeier · filed 2023-02-17(3)

Under § 25-207(3), the statute of limitations for negligence is 4 years.

Section 25-207(3) requires a negligence action to be commenced within four years.

Johnson v. Antoniutti · filed 2025-02-14(3)

In Nebraska, a negligence action such as this must be commenced within 4 years.

Section 25-207’s four-year tort limitations period does not apply to a tort claim against a decedent’s estate; the special two-year probate period applies.

Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Lexington State Bank And Trust Co. · filed 1979-10-03

Thus, under state law the only state court open to Greyhound was the county court, and the statute of limitations applicable to Greyhound in that court would have been the special probate two-year statute of limitations, not the general tort statute of limitations of four years.

Section 25-207 provides a four-year period for tort actions against a deceased tortfeasor’s personal representative in federal diversity court, even after the probate claim deadline has passed.

Williams v. Hawkeye-Security Insurance · filed 1977-03-16

These cases stand for the proposition that the personal representative of a decedent may be sued in federal court within the longer statute of limitations for tort actions, assuming that diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and the representative is present. Had the plaintiffs instituted suit on September 29, 1976 against Mr. Sok’s personal representative, they would have avoided the bar of the statute of limitations for claims against a decedent’s estate.

Section 25-207’s four-year ordinary negligence period does not apply to an injury arising from a physician’s positioning of a patient for an examination.

Olsen v. Richards · filed 1989-05-26

Thus, the 4-year ordinary negligence statute of limitations does not apply to the action Olsen has pled.

Section 25-207’s four-year period for fraud does not apply to a claim based on an attorney’s professional advice when the claim is professional malpractice despite allegations of fraud.

Stumpf v. Albracht · filed 1992-12-14(4)

The trustee contends that Count IV of the complaint alleges a claim of fraud, rather than malpractice and therefore that the two-year professional malpractice statute of limitations does not apply. We disagree. ... Albracht is an attorney being sued in his professional capacity for legal advice he allegedly gave the Snovers while acting as their attorney. Under Nebraska law, this is a professional malpractice action. Accordingly, the suit is covered by the two-year statute of limitations.

Section 25-207’s four-year fraud limitations period does not apply to a fraud claim arising from a single professional relationship governed by the malpractice limitations period.

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Touche Ross & Co. · filed 1993-10-29

We thus decline St. Paul’s invitation to now change the long-settled law of this state by separating a single professional relationship into various parts and applying to one part of that relationship the general fraud period of limitations found in § 25-207 and to another part the malpractice period of limitations found in § 25-208.

Section 25-207’s longer limitations period does not govern claims arising from professional investment advice when § 25-222 applies.

Maloley v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc. · filed 1994-10-21

In an attempt to ameliorate the relatively short statute of limitations provided in § 25-222, Maloley asserts various theories relating to Davis’ alleged breach of duties that have larger periods of limitation, e.g., § 25-207. In St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Touche Ross & Co., 244 Neb. 408, 421, 507 N.W.2d 275, 283 (1993), we again refused to separate “a single professional relationship into various parts and appl[y] to one part of that relationship the general fraud period of limitations found in § 25-207 and to another part the malpractice period of limitations found in § 25-208.” ... We are unable to distinguish that case from the case at bar. Therefore, the trial court was correct in granting summary judgment to Shearson and Davis and dismissing the petition.

Section 25-207’s general limitations period for fraud claims does not govern claims arising from contractors’ improvements to real property; § 25-223 governs those claims.

Andres v. McNeil Co., Inc. · filed 2005-12-09(4)

Given the allegations as set forth in the complaint, we conclude that the district court erred as a matter of law when it determined that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 (Reissue 1995) applied to the complaint. We further conclude that the sole applicable statute of limitations governing appellant’s claims is § 25-223.

Section 25-207 provides a four-year residual period for tort claims, but its period does not govern a Carmack Amendment freight damage claim when the more specific period in § 25-226 applies.

M.I.S. Engineering v. U.S. Express Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2006-06-26

As between § 25-207 (the-residual statute of limitations for tort claims) and § 25-226 (the statute of limitations for freight damage claims), it is obvious that I should apply the latter statute, provided that it is not inconsistent with federal law or policy. ... Despite this inconsistency, I conclude that it is appropriate in this case to borrow the 2-year period of limitations established by § 25-226.

Section 25-207’s four-year period for negligence actions does not apply to claims arising from a professional relationship; § 25-222 governs those claims.

E3 Biofuels, LLC v. Biothane, LLC · filed 2014-03-19

E3 argues that its claims are subject to the four-year general statute of .limitations for negligence actions, set forth in Neb.Rev. Stat. § 25-207. ... Accordingly, because E3’s claims arose out of its professional relationship with Defendants, “whether pled in tort or contract, the statute of limitations for professional *1003negligence contained in § 25-222 applies.”

Section 25-207(2) provides a four-year limitations period for an action to impose a constructive trust on personal property.

Nemaha Natural Resources District v. Neeman · filed 1982-01-29(2)

It appears that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 (Reissue 1979) is the applicable statute of limitations with regard to the establishment of a constructive trust on personal property. ... The action by Nemaha for the imposition of a constructive trust on the personal property was commenced on August 23, 1977, well within the 4-year statute of limitations.

Section 25-207(2) sets a four-year limitations period for conversion actions.

Upah v. Ancona Bros. Co. · filed 1994-09-23(2)

The statute of limitations for conversion actions is 4 years. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207(2) (Reissue 1989).

The four-year limitations period for recovering a mistaken payment begins when that payment is made; each payment gives rise to a separate claim.

Ohio National Life Insurance v. Rust · filed 1998-10-02

A party does not have a right to institute and maintain suit to recover a mistaken payment until such payment is made, and therefore, the statute of limitations for an action to recover a mistaken payment does not begin to run until such payment is made. ... Additional causes of action to recover subsequent mistaken dividend payments accrued on the dates those payments were made.

Section 25-207 provides a four-year limitations period for conversion actions, including actions for taking personal property.

Ag Services of America, Inc. v. United Grain, Inc. · filed 1999-12-22

Therefore, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-207 is the right statute of limitations to apply since it describes suits that are identical to the action brought by the plaintiffs. Moreover, and compared to the 18 month statute of limitations for recovery of collateral, the four year statute of limitations found in section 25-207 is a better fit with the five year life of “Effective Financing Statements” specified under the federal law.

Section 25-207 gives an action for an accounting a four-year limitations period; without a basis to toll that period, an action filed after it expires is barred.

American Driver Service, Inc. v. Truck Insurance Exchange · filed 2001-07-03

In the absence of a fiduciary relationship between ADS and Truck, there is no basis for tolling the statute of limitations, and accordingly, the statute of limitations operates to bar ADS’ 1997 action for an accounting, which was clearly filed outside of the 4-year statute of limitations.

Section 25-207 sets a four-year limitations period for constructive trust claims involving personal property, but equitable estoppel can prevent a defendant from asserting the time bar when his conduct induced delay.

Manker v. Manker · filed 2002-05-24

Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-207 (Reissue 1995) is the applicable statute of limitations with regard to the establishment of a constructive trust on personal property. ... Under these circumstances, we conclude that the district court did not err in applying equitable principles to prevent James from asserting a statute of limitations defense.

Section 25-207’s four-year period does not bar a beneficiary’s accounting claim while the trust continues under these circumstances.

In Re Charles C. Wells Revocable Trust · filed 2007-06-05

we have found no case in Nebraska where a 4-year statute of limitations has been applied to an accounting action in connection with a trust, under either § 25-207 or § 25-212. ... Based upon the foregoing, we decline to apply laches or a period of limitations to bar Lee’s action for an accounting.

Section 25-207 gives conversion and replevin actions a four-year limitations period that begins when the defendant takes possession or converts title.

Grayek v. Anguiano · filed 2019-12-17(2)

Grayek’s complaint adequately raises a cause of action for both conversion and replevin, and neither cause of action is barred by the 4-year statute of limitations contained within § 25-207. The statute of limitations for either cause of action would not begin to run until Anguiano reclaimed possession or converted the title of the Ford truck.

Section 25-207 gives conversion and replevin claims a four-year limitations period; a claim filed six years after the owners knew the property was sold is time-barred.

Cofer v. Miller · filed 2023-01-17

The court found that the Cofers’ replevin and conversion action was filed in February 2020, 6 years after the engine was sold, and thus the Cofers’ action for either replevin or conversion was time-barred. We find no clear error in the district court’s findings or decision.

Section 25-207 gives a partner four years to bring an action for an accounting, beginning when the partner first has the right to sue.

Mogensen Bros. Land & Cattle Co. v. Mogensen · filed 2020-11-03

In American Driver Serv., we found that “[a]n equity action for an accounting is subject to a 4-year statute of limitations.” 10 Neb. App. at 323, 631 N.W.2d at 145. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 (Reissue 2016). ... In the present case, we agree with the district court that the 4-year statute of limitations applies to Steven’s claim for an accounting and find that it was not in error to rule that any alleged wrongdoing prior to 2009, 4 years before Steven’s complaint in this case was filed, was time barred.

Section 25-207 gives a plaintiff four years to bring a conversion claim.

Beekman v. Beekman · filed 2022-03-01

We find that on the face of the complaint, Beekman’s conversion claim is barred by the 4-year statute of limitations found in § 25-207.

Section 25-207 sets a four-year limitations period for § 1983 actions arising in Nebraska.

Mithlo v. Mental Health Board of Seward County · filed 2025-08-25(3)

In Nebraska, § 1983 actions are subject to a four-year statute of limitations. See Montin v. Estate of Johnson, 636 F.3d 409, 412-13 (8th Cir. 2011); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 (Westlaw 2020) (“The following actions can only be brought within four years: ... (3) an action for an injury to the rights of the plaintiff, not arising on contract, and not hereinafter enumerated....”). ... There are not sufficient facts alleged in the Complaint, however, to support a finding that the statute of limitations was tolled in this case, therefore his Complaint is time barred and cannot proceed.

Section 25-207 gives a plaintiff four years to bring an unjust enrichment claim after the benefit is received and retained.

Fagan v. Lasher · filed 2024-09-24

Thus, any improvements were made, and any benefits were received and retained, sometime prior to February 2015. At that point, and until Fagan was paid, Donna was unjustly enriched. Fagan did not file his complaint, however, until April 2021, more than 6 years later, outside of both the 3-year limitation of § 30-2485 and the 4-year limitation of § 25-207.

Section 25-207’s four-year limitations period can bar refiling a claim for an accounting of corporate assets.

Fritzen v. Fritzen · filed 2020-04-07

Also, Terry would now be barred from refiling his claims for an accounting of corporate assets. See, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 (Reissue 2016); Fraser v. Temple, 173 Neb. 367, 113 N.W.2d 319 (1962) (equity action for accounting is subject to 4-year statute of limitations that accrues when plaintiff has right to maintain and institute suit).

Section 25-207’s four-year limitations period does not govern a federal claim on a bankruptcy trustee’s bond.

United States Ex Rel. Armstrong v. Hartford Casualty Insurance (In Re Armstrong) · filed 1999-06-08

The defendant’s assertion that § 322(d) is not controlling and that a Nebraska statute of limitations, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-222 (Reissue 1995) [two year statute of limitation] or Neb.Rev. Stat. § 25-207 (Reissue 1995) [four year statute of limitation] is controlling, is simply not persuasive. The claim asserted by the plaintiffs is inherently a federal claim arising under federal law and therefore is subject only to the applicable federal statute of limitations.

Section 25-207 gives plaintiffs four years from accrual to file a § 1983 claim in Nebraska.

Anthony K. v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs. · filed 2014-11-21

In Nebraska, § 1983 claims are governed by the statute of limitations in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 (Reissue 2008).

Section 25-207 provides a four-year limitations period for § 1983 claims arising in Nebraska.

Jones v. Carter · filed 2019-07-30(3)

In Nebraska, § 1983 actions are subject to a 4-year statute of limitations. See Montin v. Estate of Johnson, 636 F.3d 409, 412-13 (8th Cir. 2011); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 (“The following actions can only be brought within four years: ... (3) an action for an injury to the rights of the plaintiff, not arising on contract, and not hereinafter enumerated ....”).

Section 25-207 supplies a four-year limitations period for § 1983 claims arising in Nebraska.

Barta v. Yeomans · filed 2020-01-07(3)

In Nebraska, § 1983 actions are subject to a 4-year statute of limitations. See Montin v. Estate of Johnson, 636 F.3d 409, 412-13 (8th Cir. 2011); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 (“The following actions can only be brought within four years: ... (3) an action for an injury to the rights of the plaintiff, not arising on contract, and not hereinafter enumerated ....”). Because Barta’s purported civil rights claims accrued more than 4 years prior to the filing of this lawsuit, they are barred by the statute of limitations.

Section 25-207 supplies the four-year limitations period for § 1983 claims arising in Nebraska.

Chafin v. Wisconsin Province of the Society of Jesus · filed 2020-02-11

In Nebraska, this statute of limitations would be governed by the 4-year statute of limitations, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207; Poor Bear v. Nesbitt, 300 F. Supp. 2d 904, 912 (D. Neb. 2004).

Section 25-207 supplies a four-year limitations period for § 1983 actions arising in Nebraska.

Hansen v. The City of Superior, Nebraska · filed 2020-08-21

In Nebraska, § 1983 actions are limited by a four-year statute of limitations. See Montin v. Estate of Johnson, 636 F.3d 409, 412-13 (8th Cir. 2011); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207. ... Because Plaintiff evidently was aware of the alleged retaliatory act when he attended the City Council meeting on February 11, 2013, this claim, like his procedural due process claim, is barred by the four-year statute of limitations.

Section 25-207 supplies a four-year limitations period for personal injury actions, including § 1983 claims arising in Nebraska.

Linden · filed 2026-02-06

In Nebraska, that is the four-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207; Poor Bear, 300 F. Supp. 2d at 913 (“Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25–207 . . . applies to § 1983 actions.” (quoting Bauers, 514 N.W.2d at 634)). ... Thus, any claims prior to November 20, 2020, are barred by the statute of limitations.

Section 25-207 provides a four-year limitations period for § 1983 actions arising in Nebraska.

Coutts v. Kearney County · filed 2020-08-14(3)

In Nebraska, § 1983 actions are subject to a four-year statute of limitations. See Montin v. Estate of Johnson, 636 F.3d 409, 412-13 (8th Cir. 2011); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 (Westlaw 2020) (“The following actions can only be brought within four years: ... (3) an action for an injury to the rights of the plaintiff, not arising on contract, and not hereinafter enumerated....”).

Section 25-207 provides a four-year limitations period for § 1983 actions in Nebraska.

Webb v. Franken · filed 2021-04-08

In Nebraska, § 1983 actions are limited by a four-year statute of limitations.

Section 25-207 supplies a four-year limitations period for § 1983 actions arising in Nebraska.

Kreeger v. State of Nebraska, D&E Center (Lancaster County) · filed 2024-08-01

In Nebraska, § 1983 actions are limited by a four-year statute of limitations. See Montin v. Estate of Johnson, 636 F.3d 409, 412-13 (8th Cir. 2011); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207.

Section 25-207 supplies a four-year limitations period for § 1983 actions arising in Nebraska.

Corona v. Folts-Oberle · filed 2024-09-04(3)

In Nebraska, § 1983 actions are subject to a four-year statute of limitations. See Montin v. Estate of Johnson, 636 F.3d 409, 412-13 (8th Cir. 2011); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 (“The following actions can only be brought within four years: . . . (3) an action for an injury to the rights of the plaintiff, not arising on contract, and not hereinafter enumerated . . . .”).

Section 25-207 supplies a four-year limitations period for § 1983 actions in Nebraska.

Welch v. Byrd · filed 2024-10-23(3)

In Nebraska, § 1983 actions are subject to a four-year statute of limitations. See Montin v. Estate of Johnson, 636 F.3d 409, 412-13 (8th Cir. 2011); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 (Westlaw 2020) (“The following actions can only be brought within four years: ... (3) an action for an injury to the rights of the plaintiff, not arising on contract, and not hereinafter enumerated....”).

Section 25-207 provides a four-year limitations period for § 1983 actions arising in Nebraska.

Maxwell v. Sarpy County Clerk of Court · filed 2025-08-28(3)

In Nebraska, section 1983 actions are subject to a four-year statute of limitations. See Montin v. Est. of Johnson, 636 F.3d 409, 412-13 (8th Cir. 2011); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 (“The following actions can only be brought within four years: ... (3) an action for an injury to the rights of the plaintiff, not arising on contract, and not hereinafter enumerated . . . .”).

Section 25-207 provides a four-year limitations period for false arrest claims, which also applies to § 1983 false arrest claims arising in Nebraska.

Guidry v. Palermo · filed 2025-09-26

Under Nebraska law, the statute of limitations for a false arrest claim is four years. Blair v. Dory, No. A-13-433, 2014 WL 3585307, at *1 (Neb. Ct. App. July 22, 2014) (citing Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207). So, Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim for false arrest is subject to a four-year statute of limitations.

Section 25-207’s four-year limitations period applies to § 1983 actions brought in Nebraska.

Epp v. Gunter · filed 1988-02-03

Reasonable persons have interpreted Wilson in conflicting ways, but I am confident that the continued borrowing of the four-year limitations period of Neb.Rev. Stat. § 25-207 is in line with Wilson and that the four-year period will not burden or discriminate against section 1983 claimants.