"Appearance of Counsel" filed by the defendant's attorneys was not a voluntary appearance which waived service of the complaint because it did not request general relief from the court on an issue other than sufficiency of service or process or personal jurisdiction. Stone Land & Livestock Co. v. HBE, 309 Neb. 970, 962 N.W.2d 903 (2021).
The voluntary appearance of a party is equivalent to service of process for purposes of personal jurisdiction; parties cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction on a court by waiving statutory requirements for a court to obtain jurisdiction through a voluntary appearance. J.S. v. Grand Island Public Schools, 297 Neb. 347, 899 N.W.2d 893 (2017).
Judicially noticed filings and the bill of exceptions in a prior modification proceeding between the parties showed that the defendant made a general appearance in the subsequent modification proceeding by asking the trial court to vacate an order, to disqualify the plaintiff's counsel, and to strike the complaint. Burns v. Burns, 293 Neb. 633, 879 N.W.2d 375 (2016).
A voluntary appearance is the equivalent to service that waives a defense of insufficient service or process if the party requests general relief from the court on an issue other than sufficiency of service or process, or personal jurisdiction. Carlson v. Allianz Versicherungs-AG, 287 Neb. 628, 844 N.W.2d 264 (2014).
A voluntary appearance signed the day before a complaint or petition is filed waives service of process if filed simultaneously with or after the petition. Johnson v. Johnson, 282 Neb. 42, 803 N.W.2d 420 (2011).
A voluntary appearance of a party is equivalent to service and, in effect, is another mode of service. Nebraska Methodist Health Sys. v. Dept. of Health, 249 Neb. 405, 543 N.W.2d 466 (1996).
By filing a suggestion in bankruptcy and an amended suggestion in bankruptcy, the party asked the court to bring its powers into action on a matter other than the question of jurisdiction, thus making a general appearance and waiving any defects in the service of process. Bayliss v. Clason, 26 Neb. App. 195, 918 N.W.2d 612 (2018).
Intended defendant's father, who bore same name as defendant without distinction of "Sr." or "Jr.," had no obligation to assert affirmative defense of lack of jurisdiction or insufficient service either in answer or by motion, in plaintiff's action for personal injuries, as grounds for permitting plaintiff to serve intended defendant rather than dismissing complaint with prejudice; trial court acquired personal jurisdiction over father when father was served, and there was no objection to service of summons on father. Rudd v. Debora, 20 Neb. App. 850, 835 N.W.2d 765 (2013).
An action stood dismissed by operation of law upon the passing of 6 months after the filing of the petition, where the defendants were not served process and their voluntary appearances were entered more than 6 months after the date the petition was filed. Vopalka v. Abraham, 9 Neb. App. 285, 610 N.W.2d 433 (2000).