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

Lindsay sued Pribil and Wegener on a guaranty; jury returned verdict for Lindsay on July 21, 2016 and the court accepted the verdict on the record.
Verdict forms were filed July 21; judgment on the verdict was entered July 26, 2016. Court noted costs would be addressed by separate order.
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 ~2 hours earlier).
Court awarded costs on August 8, held a hearing on the new-trial motion September 12, and overruled the new-trial motion on October 14, 2016.
Pribil and Wegener filed a notice of appeal November 9, 2016; the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as untimely, treating the July 25 new-trial motion as a nullity.
The Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review to decide whether the § 25-1144.01 savings clause rendered the pre-judgment new-trial motion effective and thus preserved appellate jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a motion for new trial filed after announcement of verdict but before entry of judgment is effective under § 25-1144.01	Pribil/Wegener: the motion was filed after the jury’s announcement and thus is "treated as filed after the entry of judgment and on the day thereof," making it an effective terminating motion	Lindsay/Ct. of Appeals: because costs were decided after the motion was filed, the motion preceded a final judgment/decision and was therefore a nullity	Motion was effective under § 25-1144.01; no finality requirement in the savings clause, so the new-trial motion terminated the appeal period
Whether a finality requirement should be read into § 25-1144.01’s savings clause	Pribil/Wegener: statute requires only an "announcement of a verdict or decision," not a final or appealable order	Lindsay/Ct. of Appeals: relied on precedents requiring finality (analogy to § 25-1912(2)) to treat pre-judgment filings as ineffective when final matters remained	Court refused to read a finality requirement into § 25-1144.01; plain language controls and the clause applies without a final-order condition

Macke v. Pierce, 263 Neb. 868 (interpreting pre-2004 statute and holding pre-judgment new-trial motions were nullities)
Despain v. Despain, 290 Neb. 32 (construing 2004 amendment/savings clause in § 25-1144.01 to validate post-announcement, pre-judgment new-trial motions)
In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Woltemath, 268 Neb. 33 (interpreting savings clause in § 25-1912(2) to require announcement of a final order)
J & H Swine v. Hartington Concrete, 12 Neb. App. 885 (Court of Appeals decision applying finality reasoning to premature filings)