When a judgment, decree or final order is reversed, vacated or modified, the court may render judgment for all costs against the appellee or appellees or some of them, or may direct that each party pay his own costs or apportion the costs among parties or direct that judgment for costs abide the event of a new trial as, in its discretion, the equities of the cause may require.
§ 25-1933.Costs; how taxed.
Article 19: Appeals and Proceedings in Error · Last amended 1907 · Last verified July 22, 2026
In one sentenceThis section gives the reviewing court broad discretion over costs whenever it reverses, vacates, or modifies a judgment, letting it tax costs against the appellee, split them between the parties, or leave the costs question open until a new trial resolves the case.
Full Text of § 25-1933
Source
Laws 1907, c. 162, § 5, p. 496; R.S.1913, § 8205; C.S.1922, § 9158; C.S.1929, § 20-1933; R.S.1943, § 25-1933.
Plain-English Summary
Reversing or modifying a judgment raises a practical question: who pays the costs that piled up along the way? Section 25-1933 leaves that decision to the court’s discretion rather than fixing a single rule. When a judgment, decree, or final order is reversed, vacated, or modified, the court may render judgment for all costs against the appellee or appellees, or against some of them.
The court has other options as well. It may direct that each party pay that party’s own costs, or apportion the costs among the parties, or, where the case is headed back for a new trial, direct that the judgment for costs abide the event of that new trial rather than settling the costs question right away. The statute frames all of these choices as matters for the court’s discretion, guided by the equities of the case.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who pays the costs when a judgment is reversed on appeal?
Section 25-1933 lets the court decide, in its discretion, whether to tax costs against the appellee or appellees, apportion them, or direct that each party bear its own.
Can the court wait to decide the costs question until after a new trial?
Yes. The court may direct that the judgment for costs abide the event of a new trial rather than resolving costs immediately.
Does this section set a default rule for who bears costs on reversal?
No. It leaves the outcome to the court’s discretion, guided by the equities of the cause, rather than setting a fixed default.
Can costs be split among multiple appellees rather than charged to just one?
Yes. The section allows judgment for costs against some of the appellees rather than all of them.
What factors guide the court’s decision on costs under this section?
The equities of the cause, as the statute puts it, rather than a rigid formula.
Source & verification. Section text and the amendment-history citation are
reproduced verbatim from the Nebraska Legislature, Revisor of Statutes, enacted by the
Nebraska Legislature. Last verified July 22, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: who pays costs after reversal nebraskaapportioning appeal costs nebraskacosts abide new trial nebraskacourt discretion over costs on appeal