Doe v. McCoy
297 Neb. 321
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs filed a 2016 tort complaint for sexual abuse (Jane Doe, born 1985) and loss of consortium (John Doe), alleging abuse from 1991–1999 while Jane was a minor.
- Jane turned 21 on September 21, 2006.
- Defendant McCoy moved to dismiss for (1) statute-of-limitations bar and (2) failure to sue in real names (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-301). Plaintiffs submitted their real names to the court confidentially but sought to proceed anonymously.
- District court dismissed: it held §§ 25-207 (4-year tort limitation) and 25-213 (toll until age 21 for minors) produced a limitations bar on September 21, 2010, before § 25-228 (enacted 2012, extending some child sexual-assault claims to 12 years after age 21) took effect.
- Plaintiffs argued § 25-228 should revive their claim (it says “notwithstanding any other provision of law”); district court found legislative history shows § 25-228 was not intended to resurrect already-extinguished claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 25-228 (2012) extends filing deadline for this action | § 25-228 extends limitations to 12 years after 21, so suit filed 2016 is timely | Existing toll + 4-year rule produced a completed bar in 2010; later § 25-228 cannot revive extinguished claims | § 25-228 does not apply to actions already time-barred when enacted; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether legislative phrase “notwithstanding any other provision of law” overcomes constitutional/precedent bar against retroactive revival | Phrase shows intent to override prior constitutional/precedent rule and revive extinguished claims | Legislative history and precedent show Legislature did not intend to resurrect already-extinguished claims | Court reads phrase as not overruling vested rights; legislative history confirms no intent to resurrect |
| Whether plaintiffs may proceed anonymously under § 25-301 and common-law exceptions | Plaintiffs sought anonymity due to sensitive allegations | Defendant argued § 25-301 requires real-party names and no court permission was sought | Court declined to reach this issue (statute-of-limitations dispositive); district court had denied anonymity on merits but appellate decision rests on limitations ruling |
| Whether John Doe’s derivative loss-of-consortium claim survives if Jane’s claim fails | § 25-228 would make Jane timely, preserving derivative claim | If Jane’s claim is time-barred, derivative claim also fails | Derivative loss-of-consortium claim also dismissed because Jane’s claim barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Givens v. Anchor Packing, 237 Neb. 565 (holds amendment cannot resurrect an action already extinguished by prior statute; vested defense right under state constitution)
- Schendt v. Dewey, 246 Neb. 573 (reaffirming that a completed statutory bar cannot be overcome by subsequent amendment)
- Lindner v. Kindig, 293 Neb. 661 (statute-of-limitations choice is a question of law)
- Harring v. Gress, 295 Neb. 852 (standard: de novo review of district court’s grant of motion to dismiss)
- Rasmussen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 278 Neb. 289 (loss-of-consortium is derivative of underlying viable claim)