The purpose of the State Aeronautics Act is to further the public interest and aeronautical progress by (1) providing for the protection and promotion of safety in aeronautics, (2) cooperating in effecting a uniformity of the laws relating to the development and regulation of aeronautics in the several states, (3) revising existing statutes relative to the development and regulation of aeronautics so as to grant such powers to and impose such duties upon the division in order that the state may properly perform its functions relative to aeronautics and effectively exercise its jurisdiction over persons and property within such jurisdiction, may assist in the promotion of a statewide system of airports, may cooperate with and assist the political subdivisions of this state and others engaged in aeronautics, and may encourage and develop aeronautics, (4) establishing uniform regulations, consistent with federal regulations and those of other states, in order that those engaged in aeronautics of every character may so engage with the least possible restriction, consistent with the safety and the rights of others, and (5) providing for cooperation with the federal authorities in the development of a national system of civil aviation and for coordination of the aeronautical activities of those authorities and the authorities of this state by assisting in accomplishing the purposes of federal legislation and eliminating costly and unnecessary duplication of functions properly in the province of federal agencies.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1949–2025 · leading case:
Hecker v. Ravenna Bank, 468 N.W.2d 88 (Neb. 1991).
Hecker v. Ravenna Bank, 468 N.W.2d 88 (Neb. 1991).
“§ 3-102 (Reissue 1980) (“instrument” means “negotiable instrument”).”
Rodehorst v. Gartner, 669 N.W.2d 679 (Neb. 2003).
“We look to the documents, which are incorporated by reference in Rodehorst’s operative petitions, to determine whether Rodehorst’s obligation as a cosigner is distinguishable from that which he and Gartner shared as coguarantors.”
Mandolfo v. Chudy, 573 N.W.2d 135 (Neb. 1998).
“§ 3-201(1) (Reissue 1980), the predecessor of § 3-203(b), which was in effect at the time of the transfer, provides: “Transfer of an instrument vests in the transferee such rights as the transferor has therein .”
In Re Est. of Kinsey, 40 N.W.2d 526 (Neb. 1949).
· cites it 2× “” Section 3-102, R. S. Supp., 1949. *110 Sections 3-105 and 3-110, R.”
Fales v. Norine, 644 N.W.2d 513 (Neb. 2002).
“§ 3-102, comment 1 (Reissue 2001). It is a modification of the former Neb.”
In re Est. of Harchelroad, 318 Neb. 573 (Neb. 2025).
“§ 3-102(a) (Reissue 2020). 8 Neb. U.C.C. § 3-103(a)(5) (Reissue 2020).”
State of Kansas v. Holeb, 196 N.W.2d 387 (Neb. 1972).
“However, the drawing, making, and mailing of the check in Nebraska resulted in its issuance and delivery in Kansas which is a violation of the Kansas statute.”
Skiles v. Sec. State Bank, 494 N.W.2d 355 (Neb. Ct. App. 1992).
“§ 3-102(1)(e) (Reissue 1980). Since “instrument” as used in § 3-307 is limited to negotiable instruments, the burdens of pleading and proof found in § 3-307 are limited to litigation involving negotiable instruments unless the context otherwise requires.”
Bruns v. City of Seward, 185 N.W.2d 853 (Neb. 1971).
“See, §§ 3-102, 3-104, 3-123, 3-147, 3-206, 3-216, 3-218, 3-237, 3-239, 3-504 (14), 18-1506, and 18-1507, R.”
N. Bank v. Pefferoni Pizza Co., 555 N.W.2d 338 (Neb. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “See, also, § 3-102(a) (Reissue 1992) (“[t]his article applies to negotiable instruments”); § 3-104, comment 1 (Reissue 1992) (“[t]he definition of ‘negotiable instrument’ defines the scope of article 3”).”
Swift v. Norwest Bank-Omaha West, 828 N.W.2d 755 (Neb. 2013).
“§ 3-102(a) (Reissue 2001). “[N]egotiable instrument” means an unconditional prom- ise or order to pay a fixed amount of money, with or without interest or other charges described in the promise or order, if it: (1) is payable to bearer or to order at the time it is issued or…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 3-102(1) — 1 case
State of Kansas v. Holeb, 196 N.W.2d 387 (Neb. 1972).
“However, the drawing, making, and mailing of the check in Nebraska resulted in its issuance and delivery in Kansas which is a violation of the Kansas statute.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 3-102(1)(e) — 1 case
Skiles v. Sec. State Bank, 494 N.W.2d 355 (Neb. Ct. App. 1992).
“§ 3-102(1)(e) (Reissue 1980). Since “instrument” as used in § 3-307 is limited to negotiable instruments, the burdens of pleading and proof found in § 3-307 are limited to litigation involving negotiable instruments unless the context otherwise requires.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 3-102(a) — 3 cases
In re Est. of Harchelroad, 318 Neb. 573 (Neb. 2025).
“§ 3-102(a) (Reissue 2020). 8 Neb. U.C.C. § 3-103(a)(5) (Reissue 2020).”
N. Bank v. Pefferoni Pizza Co., 555 N.W.2d 338 (Neb. Ct. App. 1996).
“See, also, § 3-102(a) (Reissue 1992) (“[t]his article applies to negotiable instruments”); § 3-104, comment 1 (Reissue 1992) (“[t]he definition of ‘negotiable instrument’ defines the scope of article 3”).”
Swift v. Norwest Bank-Omaha West, 828 N.W.2d 755 (Neb. 2013).
“§ 3-102(a) (Reissue 2001). “[N]egotiable instrument” means an unconditional prom- ise or order to pay a fixed amount of money, with or without interest or other charges described in the promise or order, if it: (1) is payable to bearer or to order at the time it is issued or…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 3-102(e) — 2 cases
Mandolfo v. Chudy, 573 N.W.2d 135 (Neb. 1998).
“§ 3-201(1) (Reissue 1980), the predecessor of § 3-203(b), which was in effect at the time of the transfer, provides: “Transfer of an instrument vests in the transferee such rights as the transferor has therein .”
N. Bank v. Pefferoni Pizza Co., 555 N.W.2d 338 (Neb. Ct. App. 1996).
“See, also, § 3-102(a) (Reissue 1992) (“[t]his article applies to negotiable instruments”); § 3-104, comment 1 (Reissue 1992) (“[t]he definition of ‘negotiable instrument’ defines the scope of article 3”).”
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.