Doe v. McCoy
297 Neb. 321
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs filed a 2016 tort complaint (as “Jane Doe” and “John Doe”) alleging sexual battery, exhibitionism, and voyeurism by McCoy against Jane beginning 1991–1999 when she was a minor; John asserted loss of consortium after marrying Jane in 2014.
- Jane was born in 1985 and turned 21 on September 21, 2006.
- McCoy moved to dismiss, arguing the claims were time‑barred and that the complaint improperly used pseudonyms contrary to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25‑301.
- The district court dismissed the complaint, concluding statutes of limitation (§§ 25‑207 and 25‑213) ran on September 21, 2010, before the 2012 enactment of § 25‑228, and thus § 25‑228 could not revive the barred claims.
- The district court also rejected anonymous pleading as unjustified, but the Supreme Court affirmed dismissal solely on statute‑of‑limitations grounds and did not address the anonymity ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 2012 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25‑228 extended the limitations period so the 2016 suit was timely | § 25‑228 (12 years after 21st birthday for child sexual‑assault victims) applies and extends deadline to Sept. 21, 2018 | Existing tolling/statute (4‑year tort limit + toll until age 21) had already run in 2010; legislature cannot resurrect an extinguished bar | Held: § 25‑228 does not apply to revive actions already barred when enacted; suit was time‑barred |
| Whether the plaintiffs could proceed under pseudonyms without prior court approval | Plaintiffs used pseudonyms to protect identity; argued statute permissive | Defendant: § 25‑301 requires real party names; plaintiffs never obtained court approval to proceed anonymously | Court declined to reach on appeal; district court denied anonymous pleading (not reached because of statute‑of‑limitations ruling) |
Key Cases Cited
- Schendt v. Dewey, 246 Neb. 573 (1994) (Legislature cannot revive actions extinguished under prior limitation statute)
- Givens v. Anchor Packing, 237 Neb. 565 (1991) (amendment cannot resurrect actions already extinguished; vested reliance interests protected by due process)
- Irwin v. West Gate Bank, 288 Neb. 353 (2014) (appellate courts need not decide issues unnecessary to disposition)
- Rasmussen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 278 Neb. 289 (2009) (derivative claims such as loss of consortium fail when underlying claim fails)
- Lindner v. Kindig, 293 Neb. 661 (2016) (choice of applicable statute of limitations is a question of law)