§ 25-1132.Referees; how chosen; number.
Article 11: Trial · Not amended since original codification · Last verified July 22, 2026
Full Text of § 25-1132
Source
R.S.1867, Code § 301, p. 445; R.S.1913, § 7870; C.S.1922, § 8815; C.S.1929, § 20-1132; R.S.1943, § 25-1132.
Plain-English Summary
Section 25-1132 addresses a practical question that comes before any reference can happen: who serves as the referee? In most cases, the parties get first say. They may agree upon a suitable person or persons, not exceeding three, and the reference is ordered accordingly once they do.
That party-agreement option has one exception built in: it does not apply when an infant may be a party to the case. In that situation, the parties do not get to select the referee by their own agreement in the same way, reflecting the added protection the law gives to a minor’s interests in litigation.
When the parties cannot agree — or when an infant party takes the agreement option off the table — the decision falls to the court. The court appoints one or more referees, not exceeding three, and those referees must be free from exception, meaning free from any disqualifying bias or conflict of interest that would make them unsuitable to hear the matter.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do the parties get to pick who serves as the referee?
Usually, yes. Section 25-1132 lets the parties agree upon a suitable person or persons, not exceeding three, except when an infant may be a party.
How many referees can be appointed for a single case?
Not more than three, whether the referees are chosen by party agreement or appointed by the court.
What happens if the parties cannot agree on a referee?
The court appoints one or more referees, not exceeding three, who must be free from exception.
What does it mean for a referee to be “free from exception”?
It means the referee has no disqualifying bias or conflict of interest that would call into question their ability to hear the matter.
Why can the parties not agree on a referee when an infant is a party?
The statute carves that situation out from the party-agreement option, reflecting the added care courts take to protect a minor’s interests when a case involves a child.