Courts apply the equitable doctrine of forum non conveniens when necessary to prevent the imposition of an inconvenient jurisdiction on a litigant. A trial court may, in its discretion, dismiss a case even when contacts between the defendant and the forum state exist that may confer personal jurisdiction upon the trial court, if the case itself has no significant connection to the forum.

A resident plaintiff’s forum choice deserves deference, all else being more or less equal, but that choice does not foreclose a defendant from demonstrating that the private and public interest factors favor dismissal when another forum’s interests predominate.

In Nebraska, the courts recognize the equitable doctrine of forum non conveniens, which allows a trial court to dismiss a case if it determines that the forum chosen by the plaintiff is highly inconvenient for the defendant or witnesses, or if the case has little to no significant connection to the forum state, despite the existence of personal jurisdiction. While a resident plaintiff's choice of forum is generally given deference, this preference can be overridden if the defendant can show that both private and public interest factors strongly favor the case being heard in a different jurisdiction. Private interest factors might include the convenience of the parties and witnesses, while public interest factors could involve the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion, the local interest in having localized controversies decided at home, and the familiarity of the forum with the law that needs to be applied. The doctrine is applied on a case-by-case basis, with the court weighing the relevant factors to determine whether dismissal is appropriate to avoid imposing an inconvenient jurisdiction on the parties involved.