- 779 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

304 Nebraska Reports

SAYLOR v. STATE

Cite as 304 Neb. 779

James Saylor, appellant, v. State of 

Nebraska et al., appellees.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed January 10, 2020. No. S-18-793.

1. Tort Claims Act: Actions: Time. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 81-8,227 (Reissue 

2014) sets out a 2-year limitations period that governs not just the time 

for submitting claims to the Risk Manager, but also the time for beginning suit under the State Tort Claims Act.

2. ____: ____: ____. Before suit can be filed under the State Tort Claims 

Act, a claimant must submit the claim in writing to the Risk Manager 

within 2 years after the claim accrued.

3. ____: ____: ____. Generally speaking, a claimant cannot file suit under 

the State Tort Claims Act until the Risk Manager or State Claims Board 

makes a final disposition of the claim, but if no final disposition of a 

claim has been made after 6 months, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the claim and file suit.

4. Summary Judgment: Appeal and Error. An appellate court will affirm 

a lower court’s grant of summary judgment if the pleadings and admitted evidence show that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts 

or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from those facts and 

that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

5. ____: ____. In reviewing a summary judgment, an appellate court views 

the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the 

judgment was granted and gives that party the benefit of all reasonable 

inferences deducible from the evidence.

6. Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory interpretation presents a question 

of law, for which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent conclusion irrespective of the decision made by the court below.

7. ____: ____. Statutory language is to be given its plain and ordinary 

meaning, and an appellate court will not resort to interpretation to 

ascertain the meaning of statutory words which are plain, direct, and 

unambiguous.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

01/17/2020 09:05 AM CST
- 780 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

304 Nebraska Reports

SAYLOR v. STATE

Cite as 304 Neb. 779

8. Statutes. It is not within the province of a court to read a meaning into 

a statute that is not warranted by the language; neither is it within the 

province of a court to read anything plain, direct, or unambiguous out of 

a statute.

9. ____. A court must attempt to give effect to all parts of a statute, and if 

it can be avoided, no word, clause, or sentence will be rejected as superfluous or meaningless.

10. Statutes: Immunity. Statutes authorizing suits against the State are 

to be strictly construed because such statutes are in derogation of the 

State’s sovereign immunity.

11. Tort Claims Act: Actions: Time: Legislature. The Legislature 

expressly states in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 81-8,227(5) (Reissue 2014) that 

§ 81-8,227 and Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-213 (Reissue 2016) “shall constitute the only statutes of limitations applicable to the State Tort Claims 

Act.” Because Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.02 (Reissue 2016) is not one 

of the applicable statutes listed in § 81-8,227(5), it cannot be applied 

to extend the time period for bringing an action under the State Tort 

Claims Act.

Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County: Robert 

R. Otte, Judge. Affirmed.

Michael J. Wilson, of Schaefer Shapiro, L.L.P., for appellant.

Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, Scott R. Straus, 

and, on brief, David A. Lopez, Deputy Solicitor General, 

for appellees State of Nebraska and Nebraska Department of 

Correctional Services.

Henry L. Wiedrich, of Cline, Williams, Wright, Johnson & 

Oldfather, L.L.P., for appellee Correct Care Solutions, L.L.C.

Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, and Funke, JJ.

Stacy, J.

The central issue in this appeal is whether the savings clause 

of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.01 (Reissue 2016) applies to an 

action under the State Tort Claims Act (STCA).1 We conclude 

it does not. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district 

court dismissing this STCA action as time barred.

1 Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 81-8,209 to 81-8,235 (Reissue 2014).
- 781 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

304 Nebraska Reports

SAYLOR v. STATE

Cite as 304 Neb. 779

BACKGROUND

This appeal requires us to consider the timeliness of a tort 

action filed in 2017 by James Saylor against the State of 

Nebraska, the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services 

(DCS), and 10 others alleged to be employed by DCS. Tort 

claims against the State and its agents and employees are governed by the STCA.2

 Here, no one disputes that the tort claims 

alleged in Saylor’s 2017 action are governed by the STCA; 

instead, the dispute is whether his 2017 action was timely commenced under the STCA.

This case has a complicated factual and procedural history. 

In this opinion, we address only that which bears directly on 

resolving the central question of whether this action is time 

barred under the STCA. We begin by setting out the statutes 

that govern timeliness under the STCA.

STCA

[1-3] Section 81-8,227 sets out a 2-year limitations period 

that governs not just the time for submitting claims to the Risk 

Manager, but also the time for beginning suit under the STCA. 

Pursuant to § 81-8,227(1), before suit can be filed under the 

STCA, a claimant must submit the claim in writing to the Risk 

Manager within 2 years after the claim accrued. Generally 

speaking, a claimant cannot file suit under the STCA until the 

Risk Manager or State Claims Board makes a final disposition 

of the claim, but if no final disposition of a claim has been 

made after 6 months, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the 

claim and file suit under the STCA.3

Section 81-8,227 also contains several provisions that allow 

the 2-year limitations period to be extended under certain circumstances. For instance, § 81-8227(1) provides:

2 See Komar v. State, 299 Neb. 301, 908 N.W.2d 610 (2018). See, also, 

§ 81-8,209 (“State of Nebraska shall not be liable for the torts of its 

officers, agents, or employees, and no suit shall be maintained against 

the state, any state agency, or any employee of the state on any tort claim 

except to the extent, and only to the extent, provided by the [STCA]”).

3 § 81-8,227(1).
- 782 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

304 Nebraska Reports

SAYLOR v. STATE

Cite as 304 Neb. 779

The time to begin suit under [the STCA] shall be extended 

for a period of six months from the date of mailing of 

notice to the claimant by the Risk Manager or State 

Claims Board as to the final disposition of the claim or 

from the date of withdrawal of the claim under section 

81-8,213 if the time to begin suit would otherwise expire 

before the end of such period.4

Section 81-8,227(3) provides that if a claim is “made or filed 

under any other law of this state and a determination is made 

by a state agency or court” that the STCA is the exclusive 

remedy, “the time to make a claim and begin suit . . . shall be 

extended for a period of six months.” And § 81-8,227(4) provides that if a claim is brought under the Nebraska HospitalMedical Liability Act, time to begin suit under the STCA can 

be extended for 90 days.

Section 81-8,227(5) expressly states: “This section and section 25-213 shall constitute the only statutes of limitations 

applicable to the [STCA].” Generally speaking, Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 25-213 (Reissue 2016) tolls the running of the statute of 

limitations for certain claims, including those under the STCA, 

if a person is “within the age of twenty years, a person with a 

mental disorder, or imprisoned” when the claim accrues.

Saylor’s Tort Claim

Saylor is an inmate in the custody of DCS. On September 

14, 2012, he filed a claim with the State Claims Board pursuant 

to the STCA.5 Summarized, the claim asserted that on multiple 

occasions, employees and agents of DCS negligently failed 

to provide him necessary medical care. No one contends that 

Saylor failed to timely submit his claim to the State Claims 

Board within 2 years of the date it accrued.

On October 19, 2012, the State Claims Board mailed its 

denial of Saylor’s claim. As such, under § 81-8,227(1), Saylor 

had 6 months from that date to file suit under the STCA. The 

4 Id.

5 See id.
- 783 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

304 Nebraska Reports

SAYLOR v. STATE

Cite as 304 Neb. 779

Legislature has vested exclusive jurisdiction to hear, determine, 

and render judgment on any suit or tort claim under the STCA 

in the district court of the county in which the act or omission 

complained of occurred.6

Saylor Files Tort Action

Saylor filed the instant action in the district court for 

Lancaster County on May 30, 2017. The named defendants 

included the State, DCS, and 10 others alleged to be employed 

by DCS. The 2017 complaint appears to allege the same claims 

of negligent medical care that Saylor presented to the State 

Claims Board, and no one contends otherwise. Saylor’s 2017 

complaint also alleged civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 (2012) against the same defendants, premised on the 

same facts.

On December 6, 2017, the district court dismissed Saylor’s 

complaint against several defendants who, according to the 

court file, had not been served within the statutory time period.7

Action Removed to Federal Court

On December 8, 2017, the State and DCS filed a notice of 

removal to federal district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446 

(2012). Section 1446(d) expressly provides that after notice 

of removal is given, “the State court shall proceed no further 

unless and until the case is remanded.”

After the case was removed to federal court, the State and 

DCS sought dismissal of Saylor’s action, asserting it was 

barred by principles of claim preclusion. They argued that 

Saylor’s 2017 complaint alleged the same § 1983 claims previously litigated in a federal court action filed by Saylor in 

June 2012. In response to the motion to dismiss, Saylor was 

allowed to amend the 2017 complaint to eliminate the § 1983 

claims, leaving only the negligence claims. After doing so, 

Saylor moved to have the case—now alleging only the STCA 

6 § 81-8,214.

7 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-217 (Reissue 2016).
- 784 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

304 Nebraska Reports

SAYLOR v. STATE

Cite as 304 Neb. 779

claims—remanded to state court. That request was granted on 

April 10, 2018.

Proceedings After Remand

After the action was remanded to the state district court, the 

State and DCS moved to dismiss the “[operative] Amended 

Complaint” pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. Pldg. § 6-1112(b)(1) and 

(6), on the ground the tort claims were time barred under the 

STCA. Saylor requested and was granted leave to amend his 

original 2017 complaint to make it “identical” to the amended 

complaint that had been remanded by the federal court, and no 

party objected to this procedure. Thereafter, the parties agreed 

that the motion to dismiss could be converted into a motion for 

summary judgment and that it should be treated as relating to 

Saylor’s amended complaint.

In support of summary judgment, the State and DCS argued 

that Saylor’s negligence claims were time barred under the 

STCA because the State Claims Board had denied the claims 

on October 19, 2012, and Saylor did not file suit on those 

claims until May 30, 2017. In response, Saylor argued the savings clause in § 25-201.01 should be applied to extend the time 

period for bringing suit under the STCA.

Summarized, § 25-201.01 provides that if an action is commenced within the time prescribed by the applicable statute 

of limitations but then fails for a reason other than the merits, voluntary dismissal, failure of service, or inaction on the 

part of the plaintiff, then the plaintiff may commence a new 

action “within a period equal to the lesser of (a) six months 

after the failure of the action or (b) a period after the failure 

of the action equal to the period of the applicable statute of 

limitations of the original action.” Relying on a somewhat 

tortuous timeline involving the claims Saylor included in his 

2012 federal lawsuit, Saylor argued that even though his 2017 

tort action was filed more than 4 years after the State Claims 

Board denied the claim, it was still commenced within the time 

allowed by § 25-201.01 and thus should be deemed timely 
- 785 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

304 Nebraska Reports

SAYLOR v. STATE

Cite as 304 Neb. 779

filed. The State and DCS disagreed and generally argued that 

the factual circumstances did not implicate the savings clause 

under § 25-201.01.

The district court found § 25-201.01 did not apply and dismissed Saylor’s amended complaint with prejudice, finding 

it was time barred under the STCA. Saylor filed this appeal, 

which we moved to our docket on our own motion.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Saylor assigns, restated, that the district court erred in dismissing this action as time barred under the STCA and in not 

applying the savings clause under § 25-201.01. Because we 

find this assignment of error to be dispositive, we do not reach 

Saylor’s other assignments of error related to rulings made by 

the district court after the case was removed to federal court 

but prior to remand.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[4,5] An appellate court will affirm a lower court’s grant 

of summary judgment if the pleadings and admitted evidence 

show that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts or 

as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from those 

facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law.8 In reviewing a summary judgment, an appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

party against whom the judgment was granted and gives that 

party the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from 

the evidence.9

[6] Statutory interpretation presents a question of law, for 

which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent conclusion irrespective of the decision made by the 

court below.10

8 Larsen v. 401 Main Street, 302 Neb. 454, 923 N.W.2d 710 (2019).

9 Id.

10 Patterson v. Metropolitan Util. Dist., 302 Neb. 442, 923 N.W.2d 717 

(2019).
- 786 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

304 Nebraska Reports

SAYLOR v. STATE

Cite as 304 Neb. 779

ANALYSIS

STCA Statute of Limitations Not Met

It is undisputed that Saylor’s May 30, 2017, lawsuit was 

filed more than 6 months after his claim was denied by the 

State Claims Board on October 19, 2012, and thus, the lawsuit was filed outside the statute of limitations set forth in 

§ 81-8,227(1). Before the district court, and again in the appellate briefing, the parties focused their arguments primarily on 

whether Saylor could satisfy the requirements of the savings 

clause in § 25-201.01. But at oral argument, the defendants 

below argued for the first time that there is no circumstance 

under which the savings clause of § 25-201.01 could apply to 

an action governed by the STCA, because the plain language 

of § 81-8,227(5) provides: “This section and section 25-213 

shall constitute the only statutes of limitations applicable to 

the [STCA].” We ordered supplemental briefing on the issue, 

which presents a question of statutory interpretation.

[7-9] Statutory language is to be given its plain and ordinary 

meaning, and an appellate court will not resort to interpretation 

to ascertain the meaning of statutory words which are plain, 

direct, and unambiguous.11 It is not within the province of a 

court to read a meaning into a statute that is not warranted 

by the language; neither is it within the province of a court to 

read anything plain, direct, or unambiguous out of a statute.12 A 

court must attempt to give effect to all parts of a statute, and if 

it can be avoided, no word, clause, or sentence will be rejected 

as superfluous or meaningless.13

When it comes to determining the statute of limitations 

governing commencement of STCA actions, the plain language of § 81-8,227(5) identifies just two applicable statutes: §§ 81-8,227 and 25-213. Saylor concedes that the plain 

11 JB & Assocs. v. Nebraska Cancer Coalition, 303 Neb. 855, 932 N.W.2d 71 

(2019).

12 Id.

13 Id.
- 787 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

304 Nebraska Reports

SAYLOR v. STATE

Cite as 304 Neb. 779

language of § 81-8,227(5) prevents courts from applying any 

other statute of limitations to a STCA claim. But he contends 

that § 25-201.01 is not a statute of limitations, but, rather, is 

a savings clause. According to Saylor, “a statute of limitations 

is not a savings clause, and a savings clause is not a statute 

of limitations.”14 Saylor’s argument invites us to construe 

the term “statutes of limitations” in § 81-8,227(5) to exclude 

statutes that extend the statutory time for filing under certain circumstances.

Saylor’s argument ignores the fact that both statutes referenced in § 81-8,227(5) include provisions that could be 

characterized as savings clauses. Specifically, § 81-8,227(1) 

and (3) each authorize the 2-year statute of limitations to be 

extended for 6 months under certain circumstances. Section 

81-8,227(4) authorizes a 90-day extension of the time to begin 

suit under the STCA when a request for review is filed under 

the Nebraska Hospital-Medical Liability Act. And finally, 

§ 25-213 tolls the time period for commencing an action under 

the STCA for persons under certain disabilities at the time 

their claim accrues.

Given the nature of the statutes described in § 81-8,227(5) 

as “statutes of limitations,” we see no principled reason to 

construe the term to refer only to statutes prescribing the time 

period for bringing an action, but not to statutes extending the 

prescribed time for commencing an action.

[10,11] Statutes authorizing suits against the State are to 

be strictly construed because such statutes are in derogation 

of the State’s sovereign immunity.15 The Legislature expressly 

states in § 81-8,227(5) that §§ 81-8,227 and 25-213 “shall 

constitute the only statutes of limitations applicable to the 

[STCA].” Because § 25-201.02 is not one of the applicable 

statutes listed in § 81-8,227(5), it cannot be applied to extend 

the time period for bringing an action under the STCA. Saylor 

14 Supplemental brief for appellant at 3.

15 SID No. 1 v. Adamy, 289 Neb. 913, 858 N.W.2d 168 (2015).
- 788 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

304 Nebraska Reports

SAYLOR v. STATE

Cite as 304 Neb. 779

does not contend that any other provision in § 81-8,227 or 

§ 25-213 applies to extend the time period for commencing 

his STCA action, and we therefore agree with the district court 

that, as a matter of law, Saylor’s STCA claim is time barred.

Additional Assignments

Because the foregoing analysis shows that Saylor’s STCA 

claims were time barred, we need not address his assignments 

of error related to other rulings made by the district court. An 

appellate court is not obligated to engage in an analysis that is 

not necessary to adjudicate the case and controversy before it.16

CONCLUSION

Because Saylor’s STCA action is time barred, the district 

court correctly dismissed it with prejudice.

Affirmed.

Heavican, C.J., and Papik and Freudenberg, JJ., not 

participating.

16 Woodmen of the World v. Nebraska Dept. of Rev., 299 Neb. 43, 907 

N.W.2d 1 (2018).