(1) If the parties have agreed in writing that an action on a controversy may be brought in this state and the agreement provides the only basis for the exercise of jurisdiction, a court of this state will entertain the action if (a) the court has power under the law of this state to entertain the action; (b) this state is a reasonably convenient place for the trial of the action; (c) the agreement as to the place of the action was not obtained by misrepresentation, duress, the abuse of economic power, or other unconscionable means; and (d) the defendant, if within the state, was served as required by law of this state in the case of persons within the state or, if without the state, was served either personally or by certified mail directed to his last-known address.

(2) This section does not apply to cognovit clauses, to arbitration clauses, or to the appointment of an agent for the service of process pursuant to statute or court order.

Annotations

A court is not required to analyze due process minimum contacts and determine there is no personal jurisdiction under a minimum contacts analysis before determining if a nonresident defendant entered into an enforceable forum selection clause on which to base personal jurisdiction. Northern Nat. Gas Co. v. Centennial Resource Prod., 316 Neb. 263, 4 N.W.3d 185 (2024).

A due process minimum contacts analysis is not appropriate in determining the validity of forum selection clauses in commercial contracts. Northern Nat. Gas Co. v. Centennial Resource Prod., 316 Neb. 263, 4 N.W.3d 185 (2024).

The Model Uniform Choice of Forum Act does not dictate the order in which a court may analyze alternative arguments for personal jurisdiction. Northern Nat. Gas Co. v. Centennial Resource Prod., 316 Neb. 263, 4 N.W.3d 185 (2024).

This section applies where the court would have no jurisdiction but for the fact that the parties have consented to its exercise by the choice of forum agreement. Ameritas Invest. Corp. v. McKinney, 269 Neb. 564, 694 N.W.2d 191 (2005).

This section raises a jurisdictional barrier to the enforcement of a contractual choice of forum clause that does not meet the requirements of the Model Uniform Choice of Forum Act. Ameritas Invest. Corp. v. McKinney, 269 Neb. 564, 694 N.W.2d 191 (2005).

This section was intended to prevent a court from exercising jurisdiction where that exercise would result in injustice or in substantial inconvenience to the parties. Ameritas Invest. Corp. v. McKinney, 269 Neb. 564, 694 N.W.2d 191 (2005).

Although employee's contract specifically made Nebraska the exclusive venue for legal proceedings, employee did not breach venue clause of contract by bringing suit in another state, since Nebraska was not a reasonably convenient place for the action. Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Soc. v. Puccio, 1 Neb. App. 478, 499 N.W.2d 85 (1993).

Subsection (1) of this section is an inherent part of every contract made in Nebraska. Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Soc. v. Puccio, 1 Neb. App. 478, 499 N.W.2d 85 (1993).