Lindsay Internat. Sales & Serv. v. Wegener, 901 N.W.2d 278

Lindsay sued Wegener and Pribil on a guaranty; jury returned verdict for Lindsay on July 21, 2016, which the court announced and accepted on the record.
Judgment on the verdict was not entered until July 26, 2016; Lindsay filed a motion for costs on July 25, 2016.
Wegener and Pribil filed a motion for new trial on July 25, 2016 (file-stamped after Lindsay’s motion for costs) — after the jury announcement but before formal entry of judgment.
The court awarded costs on August 8, 2016, held a hearing on the motion for new trial on September 12, and overruled the motion on October 14, 2016.
Wegener and Pribil filed a notice of appeal on November 9, 2016; the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as untimely, concluding the July 25 motion for new trial was a nullity.
The Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review to decide whether the § 25-1144.01 savings clause made the pre-judgment motion for new trial effective, thereby tolling the appeal period.

Issue	Lindsay's Argument	Wegener/Pribil's Argument	Held
Whether a motion for new trial filed after announcement of verdict but before entry of judgment is a nullity	Motion for costs filed before new-trial motion meant judgment was not announced as final; therefore new-trial motion ineffective	§ 25-1144.01 savings clause treats such a motion as filed after entry of judgment, making it effective	Motion for new trial was effective under § 25-1144.01 and not a nullity
Whether the savings clause in § 25-1144.01 requires announcement of a final decision to apply	Savings clause should be read narrow, tied to finality (Court of Appeals view)	Savings clause plain text requires only "announcement of a verdict or decision," no finality requirement	No finality requirement; plain text governs and savings clause applies
Whether a timely motion for new trial tolled the appeal period	n/a	The motion, once treated as filed on entry date, tolled time for appeal until denial	Motion for new trial tolled appeal period; notice of appeal timely filed
Whether J & H Swine / Woltemath control application of savings clause here	Cite J & H Swine to show pre-judgment filings can be ineffective when tied to nonfinal announcements	Distinguish cases that applied a finality requirement under a different statute (§ 25-1912(2))	J & H Swine and Woltemath inapplicable; they concerned a different statute with an express "final order" requirement

Macke v. Pierce, 263 Neb. 868 (Neb. 2002) (held pre-judgment motion for new trial was a nullity under earlier statute)
Despain v. Despain, 290 Neb. 32 (Neb. 2015) (construed § 25-1144.01 savings clause to validate motions filed after announcement but before entry of judgment)
J & H Swine v. Hartington Concrete, 12 Neb. App. 885 (Neb. Ct. App. 2004) (applied final-order reasoning under a different statutory savings clause)
In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Woltemath, 268 Neb. 33 (Neb. 2004) (interpreted § 25-1912(2) to require an announcement of a final, appealable order)