Doe v. McCoy, 297 Neb. 321

Plaintiffs filed a 2016 tort complaint under the pseudonyms “Jane Doe” and “John Doe,” alleging sexual abuse of Jane by defendant McCoy between 1991–1999 when she was a minor.
Jane was born in 1985, turned 21 in 2006; John’s loss-of-consortium claim was derivative of Jane’s claim.
Defendant moved to dismiss for: (1) statutes of limitations; and (2) failure to sue in real names (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-301).
The district court dismissed the complaint, finding the action time-barred under Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-207 and 25-213 (tolled until age 21), which expired in 2010.
Plaintiffs argued Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-228 (enacted 2012, extending child-sexual-assault claims to 12 years after age 21) made the 2016 filing timely.
The district court held § 25-228 could not revive claims already barred before its enactment; plaintiffs appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 25-228 extended the limitations period so plaintiffs’ 2016 filing was timely	§ 25-228’s "notwithstanding any other provision of law" language extends limitations to 12 years after age 21, making the claim timely through 2018	Existing statutes (§§ 25-207, 25-213) tolled until 21 and expired in 2010; a later statute cannot resurrect an already-complete bar	Held: § 25-228 does not apply to claims already time-barred when enacted; action was barred and dismissal affirmed
Whether plaintiffs could proceed anonymously (use pseudonyms)	Plaintiffs sought anonymity due to sexual-assault allegations and privacy concerns	Defendant argued § 25-301 requires actions in real party names and plaintiffs never obtained court permission to proceed anonymously	Not reached on appeal (district court had denied anonymity and dismissed on statute-of-limitations grounds)

Givens v. Anchor Packing, 237 Neb. 565 (court holds a statutory amendment cannot resurrect actions extinguished under prior statute; vested bar is protected)
Schendt v. Dewey, 246 Neb. 573 (reiterates that a limitation period already complete cannot be displaced by later statutory amendment)
Rasmussen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 278 Neb. 289 (derivative loss-of-consortium claims depend on a viable primary claim)
Irwin v. West Gate Bank, 288 Neb. 353 (appellate courts need not decide issues unnecessary to disposition)
Lindner v. Kindig, 293 Neb. 661 (determination of applicable statute of limitations is a question of law)