Lindsay Internat. Sales & Serv. v. Wegener, 297 Neb. 788

Lindsay sued Pribil and Wegener on a guaranty; a jury returned a verdict for Lindsay on July 21, 2016, which the court accepted on the record that day; formal judgment was entered July 26, 2016.
Lindsay filed a motion for costs on July 25; Pribil and Wegener filed a motion for new trial later that same day (e-file timestamps show costs motion filed about 2 hours earlier).
Court awarded costs on August 8, held a hearing on the motion for new trial on September 12, and overruled the motion on October 14, 2016.
Pribil and Wegener filed a notice of appeal on November 9, 2016; the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as untimely, treating the July 25 motion for new trial as a nullity.
The Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review to decide whether the § 25-1144.01 savings clause renders a motion for new trial filed after announcement of a verdict but before entry of judgment effective.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the July 25 motion for new trial was effective to stop the appeal clock	Pribil & Wegener: motion filed after announcement of verdict and before entry of judgment; § 25-1144.01 treats it as filed on the day of judgment, so it is effective	Lindsay: motion was filed before all aspects of judgment (costs) were resolved, so motion was premature/nullity under prior cases	Held: Motion was effective under § 25-1144.01 because it was filed after announcement of the jury verdict and before entry of judgment, so it is treated as filed on the day of judgment
Whether a finality requirement (announcement must be of a final order) is implicit in § 25-1144.01	Pribil & Wegener: savings clause requires only an "announcement of a verdict or decision"; no finality required	Lindsay/Court of Appeals: relied on cases construing a different statute (§ 25-1912(2)) that required a final order, arguing similar logic applies	Held: No finality requirement in § 25-1144.01; its plain language requires only an "announcement of a verdict or decision," so the clause applies
Whether the appeal was timely filed	Pribil & Wegener: because the motion for new trial was effective, the appeal period began after the motion was overruled (Oct 14) and their Nov 9 notice was timely	Lindsay: appeal was untimely because the motion was a nullity and appeal period began earlier	Held: Appeal was timely; Supreme Court reinstated the appeal and remanded to Court of Appeals

Macke v. Pierce, 263 Neb. 868 (interpreting earlier § 25-1144.01 and holding a pre-judgment motion for new trial was a nullity)
Despain v. Despain, 290 Neb. 32 (construing the 2004 amendment to § 25-1144.01 and holding a motion filed after announcement but before entry of decree is effective)
In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Woltemath, 268 Neb. 33 (construing savings clause in § 25-1912(2) and requiring an announcement of a decision or final order for that statute)
J & H Swine v. Hartington Concrete, 12 Neb. App. 885 (Court of Appeals decision applying finality reasoning to timing questions under related statutes)