13-906. Civil suit; when permitted.
No suit shall be permitted under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act and sections 16-727, 16-728, 23-175, 39-809, and 79-610 unless the governing body of the political subdivision has made final disposition of the claim, except that if the governing body does not make final disposition of a claim within six months after it is filed, the claimant may, by notice in writing, withdraw the claim from consideration of the governing body and begin suit under such act and sections.
Source
Annotations
Because compliance with the statutory time limits set forth in this section can be determined with precision, the doctrine of substantial compliance has no application. Geddes v. York County, 273 Neb. 271, 729 N.W.2d 661 (2007).
In conjunction with section 25-2221 and section 49-801(13), a political subdivision has until the end of the last day of the 6-month period after a claimant has filed a tort claim upon which to make a final disposition of such claim. Geddes v. York County, 273 Neb. 271, 729 N.W.2d 661 (2007).
The plain and ordinary meaning of the phrase "within six months" includes the last day of the 6-month time period. Geddes v. York County, 273 Neb. 271, 729 N.W.2d 661 (2007).
The word "month" as used in this section means calendar month. Geddes v. York County, 273 Neb. 271, 729 N.W.2d 661 (2007).
Because compliance with the statutory time limit can be determined with precision, the doctrine of substantial compliance has no application to this section. Big Crow v. City of Rushville, 266 Neb. 750, 669 N.W.2d 63 (2003).
Noncompliance with this section must be pled as an affirmative defense. Big Crow v. City of Rushville, 266 Neb. 750, 669 N.W.2d 63 (2003).
Absent any consideration of the statute of limitations, filing of a petition is substantial compliance with the terms of this section as to the withdrawal of a claim from consideration. Malzahn v. Transit Authority, 244 Neb. 425, 507 N.W.2d 289 (1993).
Substantial compliance with this section is sufficient when a lack of precise compliance has caused no prejudice to the political subdivision. Big Crow v. City of Rushville, 11 Neb. App. 498, 654 N.W.2d 383 (2002).
Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.
LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.
The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.
You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.
The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.
Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.