Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-505.01 — NE Code / Chapter 25 / Section 25-505.01
View Statute 25-505.01
Status: in_force

(1) Unless otherwise limited by statute or by the court, a plaintiff may elect to have service made by any of the following methods:

(a) Personal service which shall be made by leaving the summons with the individual to be served;

(b) Residence service which shall be made by leaving the summons at the usual place of residence of the individual to be served, with some person of suitable age and discretion residing therein;

(c) Certified mail service which shall be made by (i) within ten days of issuance, sending the summons to the defendant by certified mail with a return receipt requested showing to whom and where delivered and the date of delivery, and (ii) filing with the court proof of service with the signed receipt attached; or

(d) Designated delivery service which shall be made by (i) within ten days of issuance, sending the summons by a designated delivery service to the defendant, (ii) obtaining a signed delivery receipt showing to whom and where delivered and the date of delivery, and (iii) filing with the court proof of service with a copy of the signed delivery receipt attached. As used in this subdivision, a designated delivery service means a delivery service designated as such pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 7502(f) and a signed delivery receipt includes an electronic or facsimile receipt with an image of the recipient's signature.

(2) Failure to make service by the method elected by the plaintiff does not affect the validity of the service.

(3) The State Court Administrator shall maintain on the website of the Supreme Court a list of designated delivery services.

Laws 1983, LB 447, § 22;

Laws 1984, LB 845, § 21;

Laws 2009, LB35, § 6;

Laws 2011, LB669, § 7.

Workers' compensation cases, manner and time of service, see sections 48-174 , 48-175 , 48-175.01 , and 48-190 .

This section does not require service to be sent to the defendant's residence or restrict delivery to the addressee. But service must still comply with the due process requirement that notice be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and to afford them the opportunity to present their objections. Doe v. Board of Regents, 280 Neb. 492, 788 N.W.2d 264 (2010).

This section does not require service to be sent to the defendant's residence or restrict delivery to the addressee. But service must still comply with the due process requirement that notice be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and to afford them the opportunity to present their objections. Doe v. Board of Regents, 280 Neb. 492, 788 N.W.2d 264 (2010).

Plaintiff may elect to have service made by any of the methods specified in the statute. West Town Homeowners Assn. v. Schneider, 221 Neb. 674, 380 N.W.2d 265 (1986).

Plaintiff may elect to have service made by any of the methods specified in the statute. West Town Homeowners Assn. v. Schneider, 221 Neb. 674, 380 N.W.2d 265 (1986).

Although this section does not require service to be sent to the defendant's residence or restrict delivery to the addressee, due process requires notice to be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and to afford them the opportunity to present their objections. Capital One Bank v. Lehmann, 23 Neb. App. 292, 869 N.W.2d 917 (2015).

Although this section does not require service to be sent to the defendant's residence or restrict delivery to the addressee, due process requires notice to be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and to afford them the opportunity to present their objections. Capital One Bank v. Lehmann, 23 Neb. App. 292, 869 N.W.2d 917 (2015).

Personal service at work rather than at home, despite the designation on the praecipe of where service should be effected, is nonetheless valid service. Hatcher v. McShane, 12 Neb. App. 239, 670 N.W.2d 638 (2003).

Personal service at work rather than at home, despite the designation on the praecipe of where service should be effected, is nonetheless valid service. Hatcher v. McShane, 12 Neb. App. 239, 670 N.W.2d 638 (2003).