Doe v. McCoy, 297 Neb. 321

Plaintiffs filed a tort complaint in 2016 alleging sexual abuse of “Jane Doe” by McCoy between 1991–1999; Jane was born in 1985 and was a minor during the alleged abuse. John Doe asserted a derivative loss-of-consortium claim after marrying Jane in 2014.
Plaintiffs sued using pseudonyms; before the dismissal hearing they filed a confidential disclosure of their real names with the court.
McCoy moved to dismiss based on statutes of limitations and for failure to sue in the plaintiffs’ real names (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-301).
The district court held the claims were time-barred under Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-207 (4-year tort limitation) and 25-213 (tolling for minors until age 21), which together expired in 2010, and rejected application of § 25-228 (2012 extension for child sexual-assault victims) because the bar was already complete when § 25-228 was enacted.
The district court also denied anonymous pleading as not sufficiently justified, but the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed dismissal solely on statute-of-limitations grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-228 (2012) extends filing time for plaintiffs whose prior limitation period had already run	§ 25-228 creates a 12-year extension after a victim’s 21st birthday, so the 2016 filing was timely	Prior statutes (§§ 25-207 and 25-213) produced a complete bar in 2010; a later statute cannot resurrect an extinguished claim	The court held § 25-228 does not revive claims already time-barred when enacted; dismissal affirmed
Whether plaintiffs could proceed anonymously under § 25-301 and common-law exceptions	Anonymous filing was necessary to protect privacy and encourage reporting	Plaintiffs failed to obtain court permission and the court would not have granted anonymity as allegations were not sufficiently exceptional	Court did not decide on anonymity because statute-of-limitations ruling was dispositive

Givens v. Anchor Packing, 237 Neb. 565 (1991) (a statutory amendment cannot resurrect actions extinguished under prior limitations law)
Schendt v. Dewey, 246 Neb. 573 (1994) (limitations period in effect at filing generally governs; legislature cannot deprive a defendant of a completed bar)
Rasmussen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 278 Neb. 289 (2009) (derivative loss-of-consortium claims fail if the underlying claim is not viable)
Lindner v. Kindig, 293 Neb. 661 (2016) (determination of applicable statute of limitations is a question of law reviewed de novo)
Irwin v. West Gate Bank, 288 Neb. 353 (2014) (appellate courts need not address issues unnecessary to adjudicate the controversy)