Doe v. McCoy, 297 Neb. 321

Plaintiffs filed a 2016 tort complaint (using pseudonyms Jane and John Doe) alleging sexual abuse of Jane by defendant McCoy between 1991–1999 when she was a minor; John sought loss of consortium.
Jane was born in 1985, turned 21 on September 21, 2006; plaintiffs filed suit February 3, 2016.
Defendant moved to dismiss claiming the claims were time-barred and that the complaint improperly used pseudonyms rather than real names under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-301.
The district court concluded §§ 25-207 (4-year limitations) and 25-213 (tolling until age 21 for minors) meant the limitations expired September 21, 2010, so the 2016 suit was barred.
Plaintiffs argued Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-228 (enacted 2012, extending child sexual-assault claims to 12 years after 21st birthday) made the suit timely; the district court rejected this because the prior bar was already complete when § 25-228 was enacted.
The district court also denied anonymous pleading; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed dismissal on statute-of-limitations grounds and declined to address the anonymity issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 25-228 (2012) extends limitations for actions already time-barred before its enactment	§ 25-228 extends the filing deadline to 12 years after plaintiff's 21st birthday, making the 2016 suit timely	A defendant’s completed statutory bar (expired 2010) cannot be removed by later enactment; § 25-228 cannot resurrect extinguished claims	§ 25-228 does not apply to claims already barred when enacted; suit was time-barred
Whether plaintiffs could proceed anonymously (use pseudonyms) without prior court approval	Plaintiffs sought to proceed as Jane and John Doe due to sensitivity of sexual-abuse allegations	Defendant argued § 25-301 requires actions in real party names; anonymity requires prior court approval and is disfavored	Court did not decide on appeal (dismissal on limitations dispositive); district court had denied anonymity request

Schendt v. Dewey, 246 Neb. 573 (1994) (legislature may not revive claims extinguished under prior limitations)
Givens v. Anchor Packing, 237 Neb. 565 (1991) (amendment cannot resurrect an action the prior statute extinguished; vested rights and due process limits)
Irwin v. West Gate Bank, 288 Neb. 353 (2014) (appellate courts need not decide issues unnecessary to disposition)
Lindner v. Kindig, 293 Neb. 661 (2016) (which statute of limitations applies is a question of law reviewed independently)
Rasmussen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 278 Neb. 289 (2009) (loss-of-consortium claim is derivative of a viable plaintiff's claim)
Harring v. Gress, 295 Neb. 852 (2017) (grant of motion to dismiss reviewed de novo)