Nebraska Statutes
§ 25-538 — Action in another forum; stay or dismissal of action
Nebraska § 25-538
JurisdictionNebraska
Ch. 25Courts; Civil Procedure
This text of Nebraska § 25-538 (Action in another forum; stay or dismissal of action) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-538 (2026).
Text
When the court finds that in the interest of substantial justice the action should be heard in another forum, the court may stay or dismiss the action in whole or in part on any conditions that may be just.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Applied Underwriters v. S.E.B. Servs. of New York
297 Neb. 246 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2017)
WOODMEN OF WORLD LIFE INS. SOC. v. Kight
522 N.W.2d 155 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1994)
Woodmen of World Life Insurance Society v. Walker
510 N.W.2d 439 (Nebraska Court of Appeals, 1993)
Milmar Food Group II v. Applied Underwriters
29 Neb. Ct. App. 714 (Nebraska Court of Appeals, 2021)
Woodmen of the World Life Insurance Society v. Kight
522 N.W.2d 155 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1994)
Applied Underwriters v. Sky Materials Corp.
(Nebraska Court of Appeals, 2019)
Lundahl v. Chavarin
(Nebraska Court of Appeals, 2019)
Lundhal v. Roberts
(Nebraska Court of Appeals, 2019)
WOODMEN OF WORLD LIFE v. Walker
510 N.W.2d 439 (Nebraska Court of Appeals, 1993)
Legislative History
Source: Laws 1967, c. 143, § 4, p. 439.
Annotations: Trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to dismiss case on basis of forum non conveniens. Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Soc. v. Kight, 246 Neb. 619, 522 N.W.2d 155 (1994). The district court considered the public interest factors of forum non conveniens and dismissed the plaintiff's action, concluding that New York was a better forum. However, the district court failed to also consider the unique circumstances of the case, namely, that a New York court had already dismissed the plaintiff's case because it determined that the case should be heard in Nebraska pursuant to a forum selection clause in the parties' contract; the New York court did not address the public interest factors of forum non conveniens in its decision. Given the unique circumstances, rather than dismissing the action, the district court should have stayed the action on the condition that the case is filed in and accepted by the New York courts. Milmar Food Group II v. Applied Underwriters, 29 Neb. App. 714, 958 N.W.2d 920 (2021). Where diverse parties to a contract have agreed in writing that the defendant will assume the burden of litigating an action on the contract in the plaintiff's home jurisdiction, and where there is no evidence of fraud or duress or any other action by the plaintiff that would retroactively render void the contractual forum selection, this section does not authorize a court to arbitrarily amend the contract by nullifying the forum selection clause and reassigning to the plaintiff the burden of litigating an action on the contract in a foreign jurisdiction. Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Soc. v. Walker, 1 Neb. App. 882, 510 N.W.2d 439 (1993).
Nearby Sections
15
§ 25-1001
Attachment; grounds§ 25-1006
Attachment; order; return day§ 25-101
Civil action§ 25-1012
Repealed. Laws 1980, LB 597, § 18§ 25-1012.01
Garnishment; public officers and employeesCite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
Nebraska § 25-538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/statute/ne/25-538.