The first sentence of this section relates to jurisdiction; the second sentence indicates the place of venue. Blitzkie v. State, 228 Neb. 409, 422 N.W.2d 773 (1988).
The findings of fact of the trial court in a proceeding under the State Tort Claims Act have the effect of jury findings and will not be disturbed on appeal unless they are clearly wrong. McMullin Transfer v. State, 225 Neb. 109, 402 N.W.2d 878 (1987).
Judicial findings of fact have the same force and effect as a jury finding of fact. Oldenburg v. State, 221 Neb. 1, 374 N.W.2d 341 (1985).
The State Tort Claims Act requires that actions of this nature be heard without a jury but otherwise determined in the same manner as other suits. The action is similar to a law action in which a jury has been waived and is governed by the same rules. Saporta v. State, 220 Neb. 142, 368 N.W.2d 783 (1985).
The county in which the act or omission occurred means the site where the wrongful conduct actually takes place, not where the results of the wrongful conduct take place or occur. Wickersham v. State, 218 Neb. 175, 354 N.W.2d 134 (1984).
On an appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court of an action under the State Tort Claims Act, the findings of the trial court will not be disturbed unless clearly wrong. Wakenight v. State, 212 Neb. 798, 326 N.W.2d 52 (1982).
The action must be brought in the county where the act or omission occurred. The statutory provisions authorizing the transfer of an action where the venue was improper are not applicable to suits under the State Tort Claims Act. Miller v. State, 208 Neb. 170, 302 N.W.2d 692 (1981).
An action against the state or a state agency is governed by this section only. Catania v. The University of Nebraska, 204 Neb. 304, 282 N.W.2d 27 (1979).
Jurisdiction to hear tort claims filed against the state, including tort actions by prison inmates against state officials seeking monetary damages, is specifically vested in the district court. Pratt v. Clarke, 8 Neb. App. 199, 590 N.W.2d 426 (1999).