Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

194 Neb. 781

235 N.W.2d 639

Swick v. Coslor

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided December 4, 1975

Nebraska Supreme Court · decided 1975-12-04

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Prior to filing any other pleading or motion, a special appearance may be made for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant. The defendant’s assertion of a claim for affirmative relief by way of counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim waives any objection that the court erred in overruling the special appearance. The defendant’s participation in proceedings on any issue other than jurisdiction over the person waives any objection that the court erred in overruling the special appearance except the objection that the defendant is not amenable to process issued by a court of this state.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Williams v. Gould, Inc.

Relies on Abel v. SOUTHWEST CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1975-12-04

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently March 1991

6 state decisions

20197519801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Irons, District Judge.

¶1 The plaintiff filed his petition in the District Court for Custer County, Nebraska, praying among other things general damages in a dollar amount of $100,000 and caused the summons to be issued with an endorsement including the $100,000 figure for recovery of general damages if the defendant defaulted.

¶2 There is no dispute that the summons was issued and served upon the defendant.

¶3 The defendant filed a special appearance for the sole purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court for the reason that the summons was invalid and void. *782 Thereafter the court sustained the defendant’s special appearance and plaintiff appeals. . . .

¶4 The only'-.question for consideration here is whether the inclusion of a dollar amount for general damages in the petition in light of the language of section 25-804, R. S. Supp., 1973, and section 25-503, R. R. S. 1943, relating to- service of summons is sufficient to declare the summons void.

¶5 A special appearance must be confined to an attack on the jurisdiction of the court on the validity of the summons and its service. Abel v. Southwest Cas. Ins. Co., 182 Neb. 605, 156 N. W. 2d 166.

¶6 ' In the' present case the service is not in dispute, and the special appearance--attacks only on the ground of the' inclusion of a dollar, amount for general damages.

¶7 Other than for this inclusion the.-plaintiff has fully complied with the requirement of section 25-804, R. S. Supp.,T973, and the defendant was fully informed of the action against him' and was in no way deceived. Any error by the plaintiff in stating a dollar amount of general damage did not affect any substantial right of the defendánt.

¶8 The order of the District Court in sustaining the defendant’s special appearance ■ is reversed and the cause remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.

¶9 Reversed and remanded.

Colwell, District Judge, concurs in result.
/194/neb/781 · .json · Public domain