§ 6-1101.Scope and purpose of rules.

Current version (effective January 1, 2025)

COMMENTS TO § 6-1101 [1] The rule addresses the scope of the Nebraska Court Rules of Pleading in Civil Cases and how the rules should be construed. Subpart (a) provides that the pleading rules apply to the extent that they are not inconsistent with any applicable statutes. The purpose of the provision is to make it clear that if the statutes governing a particular action contain requirements that are different than or in addition to the requirements imposed by the pleading rules, the statutes supersede the rules and must be followed. [2] For example, the statutes governing partition specify that the complaint must contain a description of the property as well as the interests and estates of the owners. The answer must contain, among other things, a statement of the amount and nature of each defendant’s interests in the property. See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-2170 and 25-2174. Those statutes supersede the pleading rules and must be followed. [3] Forcible entry and detainer actions provide another example. The statutes governing forcible entry and detainer actions specify the contents of the complaint and do not require an answer to the claim for possession. See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-21,222 and 25-21,223. Again, those statutes supersede the pleading rules and must be followed. [4] The original version of § 6-1101 contained a specific provision on forcible entry and detainer actions. The provision stated that the rules apply only to the extent that they are not in conflict with the statutes that govern forcible entry and detainer actions. The provision was deleted in 2024 because it was unnecessary in light of the general provision in subpart (a). [5] Subpart (b) is modeled on Rule 1(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and includes the precatory language that was added to Federal Rule 1(b) in 2015 regarding how parties should construe and employ the rules. The purpose of the language is: to emphasize that just as the court should construe and administer these rules to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action, so the parties share the responsibility to employ the rules in the same way. Most lawyers and parties cooperate to achieve these ends. But discussions of ways to improve the administration of civil justice regularly include pleas to discourage over-use, misuse, and abuse of procedural tools that increase cost and result in delay. Effective advocacy is consistent with — and indeed depends upon — cooperative and proportional use of procedure. This amendment does not create a new or independent source of sanctions. Neither does it abridge the scope of any other of these rules. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, Advisory Committee Notes to the 2015 Amendment. [6] The 2024 Amendments changed the “inexpensive determination of every action” to the “determination of every action without undue cost.” The change was made because litigation can be expensive even when the rules are properly employed. The goal is not to avoid cost in and of itself. The goal is instead to avoid undue cost.

Prior version (in effect before January 1, 2025)

COMMENT The Rules are authorized by §§ 25-801.01 and 42-353. Jurisdiction to hear a forcible entry and detainer action is discussed in Cummins Mgmt. v. Gilroy, 266 Neb. 635, 667 N.W.2d 538 (2003).