When the defendant is holding an office to which another is claiming the right, the information should set forth the name of such claimant, and the trial must, if practicable, determine the rights of the contesting parties.
§ 25-21,127.Action by claimant against incumbent of office; information; trial.
Article 21: Special Proceedings and Actions · Not amended since original codification · Last verified July 22, 2026
In one sentenceWhen someone claims the right to an office currently held by the defendant, this section requires the information to name that claimant and directs the trial, whenever practicable, to settle the competing rights of both the claimant and the sitting officeholder.
Full Text of § 25-21,127
Source
R.S.1867, Code § 710, p. 518; R.S.1913, § 8334; C.S.1922, § 9286; C.S.1929, § 20-21,118; R.S.1943, § 25-21,127.
Plain-English Summary
Section 25-21,127 covers the common shape of a quo warranto fight over public office: someone already sits in the office, and someone else claims the right to sit there instead. When that is the situation, the information must name the claimant, not just describe the incumbent’s alleged wrongdoing.
Naming the claimant matters because of what comes next. The statute directs the trial to resolve, whenever practicable, the rights of the contesting parties — not merely whether the incumbent holds the office unlawfully, but who holds the better claim to it. That turns the proceeding into a genuine contest between two rivals rather than a one-sided challenge to the sitting officer.
Frequently Asked Questions
What triggers Section 25-21,127?
A quo warranto action in which the defendant holds an office that another person claims the right to hold instead.
Does the information have to identify the rival claimant by name?
Yes. The section requires the information to set forth the name of the claimant.
Does the trial only decide whether the incumbent is unlawfully in office?
No. The trial must, if practicable, determine the rights of the contesting parties, meaning it resolves the claimant’s competing right along with the incumbent’s title.
What if resolving both parties’ rights in one trial is not practicable?
The statute’s "if practicable" language recognizes that a single trial may not always settle every contested right, though it directs the court to do so whenever it can.
How does this section connect to the judgment sections that follow?
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: claimant against incumbent officeholderrival claim to public officequo warranto office dispute trialnaming the claimant in the informationcontested office nebraska statute