(1) The Legislature finds and declares that:
(a) Community gardens provide significant health, educational, and social benefits to the general public, especially for those who reside in urban and suburban areas of this state;
(b) The community garden movement (i) continues to provide low-cost food that is fresh and nutritious for those who may be unable to readily afford fresh fruits and vegetables for themselves or their families, (ii) promotes public health and healthier individual lifestyles by encouraging better eating habits and increased physical activity by growing food, (iii) fosters the retention and expansion of open spaces, particularly in urban environments, (iv) enhances urban and suburban environmental quality and community beautification, (v) provides inexpensive community building activities, recreation, and physical exercise for all age groups, (vi) establishes a safe place for community involvement and helps to reduce the incidence of crime, (vii) engenders a closer relationship between urban residents, nature, and the local environment, and (viii) fosters green job training and ecological education at all levels; and
(c) It is the public policy of this state to promote and foster growth in the number of community gardens and the acreage of such gardens.
(2) It is the intent of the Legislature and the purpose of the Community Gardens Act to foster growth in the number, size, and scope of community gardens in this state by encouraging state agencies, municipalities, and private parties in their efforts to promote community gardens.
Notes of Decisions
Arthur v. Microsoft Corp., 676 N.W.2d 29 (Neb. 2004).
· cites it 24× “§ 2-302 (Reissue 2001). The district court sustained Microsoft's demurrer and dismissed the action without leave to amend, finding that the plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action.”
Adams v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 498 N.W.2d 577 (Neb. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 7× “§ 2-302 (Reissue *342 1980), thereby failing to find and instruct the jury that the limitation of damages clause in the herbicide label excluded the plaintiffs’ recovery of consequential damages from breach of warranty.”
Guaranteed Foods of Nebraska, Inc. v. Rison, 299 N.W.2d 507 (Neb. 1980).
· cites it 6× “§ 2-302 (Reissue 1971); and (2) In failing to find that the Risons had effectively cancelled the membership agreement and both installment contracts in compliance with the cancellation provisions set forth in all of said contracts.”
Hawkins Constr. Co. v. Matthews Co., Inc., 209 N.W.2d 643 (Neb. 1973).
· cites it 2× “, providing the disclaimer is not unconscionable within the meaning of sections 2-302 and 2-719(3), U.C.C. This conflict poses a historic de bate in the development of strict tort liability.”
Abbott v. Abbott, 195 N.W.2d 204 (Neb. 1972).
“” § 2-302(1), U.C.C. Apart from statute, the need for security of transactions in the traditional sense has yielded somewhat to *67 the need for flexibility.”
Melcher v. Boesch Motor Co., 198 N.W.2d 57 (Neb. 1972).
“§ 2-302, U. C. C. It is commented, under that section, that: “The basic test is whether in the light of the general commercial background and the commercial needs of the particular trade or case, the clauses involved are so one-sided as to be unconscionable under the…”
Belitz v. City of Omaha, 108 N.W.2d 421 (Neb. 1961).
“2, of the constitution of the State (Code, § 2-302), could not be altered by the later act.”
Reyna Fin. Corp. v. Lewis Serv. Ctr., Inc., 429 N.W.2d 380 (Neb. 1988).
“” The defendants’ pretrial conference memorandum described the action as “a suit for collection of a debt created by execution of a master lease____” None of the defenses asserted referred to a failure of the plaintiff to give adequate notice of the sale of the property. Just…”
R. D. Lowrance, Inc. v. Peterson, 178 N.W.2d 277 (Neb. 1970).
· cites it 2× “Peterson contends that the usage violated the Uniform Commercial Code without reference to section 2-302, U. C. C., on unconseionability.”
Wortman v. Jessen, 159 N.W.2d 564 (Neb. 1968).
“§ 2-302, U. C. C. “A condition may be as penal in its effects as a promise to pay a penalty.”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-302(1): 2 cases
Abbott v. Abbott, 195 N.W.2d 204 (Neb. 1972).
“” § 2-302(1), U.C.C. Apart from statute, the need for security of transactions in the traditional sense has yielded somewhat to *67 the need for flexibility.”
Guaranteed Foods of Nebraska, Inc. v. Rison, 299 N.W.2d 507 (Neb. 1980).
“§ 2-302 (Reissue 1971); and (2) In failing to find that the Risons had effectively cancelled the membership agreement and both installment contracts in compliance with the cancellation provisions set forth in all of said contracts.”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-302(2): 1 case
Adams v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 498 N.W.2d 577 (Neb. Ct. App. 1992).
“§ 2-302 (Reissue *342 1980), thereby failing to find and instruct the jury that the limitation of damages clause in the herbicide label excluded the plaintiffs’ recovery of consequential damages from breach of warranty.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.