American rule in Nebraska

1997In the important case Olson v. City of Wahoo, 124 Neb. 802 , 248 N.W. 304 (1933), the Nebraska Supreme Court rejected the English common-law rule of ownership and adopted instead the American rule that the owner of land is entitled to appropriate subterranean waters found under his land, but he cannot extract and appropriate them in excess of a reasonable and beneficial use upon the land which he owns, especially if such use is injurious to others who have substantial rights to the waters ....

1997In the important case Olson v. City of Wahoo, 124 Neb. 802 , 248 N.W. 304 (1933), the Nebraska Supreme Court rejected the English common-law rule of ownership and adopted instead the American rule that the owner of land is entitled to appropriate subterranean waters found under his land, but he cannot extract and appropriate them in excess of a reasonable and beneficial use upon the land which he owns, especially if such use is injurious to others who have substantial rights to the waters ....

2007See, In re Guardianship of Rebecca B. et al., 260 Neb. 922 , 621 N.W.2d 289 (2000); State v. Schnabel, 260 Neb. 618 , 618 N.W.2d 699 (2000).

2007See, In re Guardianship of Rebecca B. et al., 260 Neb. 922 , 621 N.W.2d 289 (2000); State v. Schnabel, 260 Neb. 618 , 618 N.W.2d 699 (2000).

2007See, Holt County Co-op Assn., supra; Mangiante v. Niemiec, 98 Conn. App. 567 , 910 A.2d 235 (2006).

2007See, Holt County Co-op Assn., supra; Mangiante v. Niemiec, 98 Conn. App. 567 , 910 A.2d 235 (2006).

2005Maddocks v. Giles, supra. The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 858, comment b. at 259 (1979), notes in part: The general rule is phrased in terms of nonliability in order to carry forward the policy of encouraging ground water use by permitting more or less unrestricted development of the resource by those who have access to it.

2005Maddocks v. Giles, supra. The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 858, comment b. at 259 (1979), notes in part: The general rule is phrased in terms of nonliability in order to carry forward the policy of encouraging ground water use by permitting more or less unrestricted development of the resource by those who have access to it.

1978The American rule of reasonable use also recognized a proprietary interest of an overlying owner in the waters under his lands. “ ‘ “The American, as distinguished from the English rule, is that, while the owner of the land is entitled to appropriate subterranean or other waters accumulating on his land, which thereby becomes a part of the realty, he cannot extract and appropriate them in excess of a reasonable and beneficial use upon the land he owns, unconnected with the beneficial use of the land, especially if the exercise of such use in excess of the reasonable and beneficial use is injur

1978The American rule of reasonable use also recognized a proprietary interest of an overlying owner in the waters under his lands. “ ‘ “The American, as distinguished from the English rule, is that, while the owner of the land is entitled to appropriate subterranean or other waters accumulating on his land, which thereby becomes a part of the realty, he cannot extract and appropriate them in excess of a reasonable and beneficial use upon the land he owns, unconnected with the beneficial use of the land, especially if the exercise of such use in excess of the reasonable and beneficial use is injur

1920In Hammer v. Forde, 125 Minn. 146 , is another discussion which is typical of the American rule, wherein it is held that allegations in a pleading are privileged and cannot serve as a basis for a libel suit, unless it clearly appears that the same were not pertinent,, material or. relevant to the controversy in litigation.

1920In Hammer v. Forde, 125 Minn. 146 , is another discussion which is typical of the American rule, wherein it is held that allegations in a pleading are privileged and cannot serve as a basis for a libel suit, unless it clearly appears that the same were not pertinent,, material or. relevant to the controversy in litigation.

1913“And accordingly it is the general, if not the universal, American doctrine that the widow may redeem the husband’s lands from an existing incumbrance, and thus entitle herself to dower even as against the mortgagee.” In Hugunin v. Cochrane, 51 Ill. 302 , 2 Am.

1898The question thereby raised was not identical with that presented to us, but in the consideration of the question which Avas presented there was employed this language: “It is uoav a Avell settled and universally recognized American doctrine that the state legislature represents the sovereignty of the people of the state in aU tilings not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited by the United States constitution to the states, nor prohibited by the state constitution.” (Police Commissioners v. City of Louisville, 3 Bush [Ky.] 597.) In Diamond v. Cain, 21 La.

1897If it is desired to examine the witness upon other matters, the party desiring such examination must make the witness his own and call him as such.” Davis v. Neligh, 7 Neb., 84 , adhered to.

1888But it is, however, a pertinent observation, and may be considered in ascertaining from the course of dealing and common practice of the plaintiffs, before and after the transaction involved, whether an implied assent is not to be inferred in this case. : In the leading modern case of Locke v. Lewis, 124 Mass., 1, 1879 , it was held that “a sale by a partner, in payment of his own debt, of goods which are in fact goods of the partnership, but so entrusted to him as to enable him to deal with as his own, and to induce the public to believe to be his, which the creditor receives in good, faith,

1888But it is, however, a pertinent observation, and may be considered in ascertaining from the course of dealing and common practice of the plaintiffs, before and after the transaction involved, whether an implied assent is not to be inferred in this case. : In the leading modern case of Locke v. Lewis, 124 Mass., 1, 1879 , it was held that “a sale by a partner, in payment of his own debt, of goods which are in fact goods of the partnership, but so entrusted to him as to enable him to deal with as his own, and to induce the public to believe to be his, which the creditor receives in good, faith,