Neb. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 3
Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 3-109 (2026)

Division; powers; rules and regulations; applicability to federal government

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The division may (1) perform such acts, (2) issue and amend such orders, (3) adopt and promulgate such reasonable general or special rules, regulations, and procedure, and (4) establish such minimum standards, consistent with the State Aeronautics Act, as it shall deem necessary to carry out the act and to perform its duties under the act as commensurate with and for the purpose of protecting and insuring the general public interest and safety, the safety of persons receiving instruction concerning, or operating, using, or traveling in aircraft, and of persons and property on land or water, and to develop and promote aeronautics in this state. No rule or regulation of the division shall apply to airports or other air navigation facilities owned or controlled by the federal government within this state.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1949–1997 · leading case: State ex rel. State Ry. Comm'n v. Ramsey, 37 N.W.2d 502 (Neb. 1949).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State ex rel. State Ry. Comm'n v. Ramsey, 37 N.W.2d 502 (Neb. 1949). · cites it 4× “Myers, as members of Nebraska Aeronautics Commission, to secure an adjudication that LB 247, Sixtieth Session of Nebraska Legislature, (§§ 3-109 and 75-201, R. S. Supp., 1947) is invalid; that the State Railway Commission has general control of intrastate common carriers by air,…”
N. Bank v. Pefferoni Pizza Co., 562 N.W.2d 374 (Neb. 1997). · cites it 3× “§ 3-109, comment 2. If an extension is to be at the option of the maker, a definite time limit must be stated or the time of payment remains uncertain and the instrument is not negotiable.”
N. Bank v. Pefferoni Pizza Co., 555 N.W.2d 338 (Neb. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 8× “§ 3-109, comment 2 (Reissue 1980) (noting change in statutory language from “fixed or determinable future time” to “definite time”).”
Emerson v. Zagurski, 531 N.W.2d 237 (Neb. Ct. App. 1995). “§ 3-109 (Reissue 1992), which states in part: (a) A promise or order is payable to bearer if it: (1) states that it is payable to bearer or to the order of bearer or otherwise indicates that the person in possession of the promise or order is entitled to payment; (2) does not…”
Skiles v. Sec. State Bank, 494 N.W.2d 355 (Neb. Ct. App. 1992). “§ 3-109(2) (Reissue 1980); the inability to determine a “sum certain” without reference to outside sources, namely the indebtedness of the undersigned; and the conditional nature of the promise to pay, which is inconsistent with § 3-104(1)(b).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 3-109(1) — 1 case
N. Bank v. Pefferoni Pizza Co., 562 N.W.2d 374 (Neb. 1997). “§ 3-109, comment 2. If an extension is to be at the option of the maker, a definite time limit must be stated or the time of payment remains uncertain and the instrument is not negotiable.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 3-109(2) — 2 cases
Skiles v. Sec. State Bank, 494 N.W.2d 355 (Neb. Ct. App. 1992). “§ 3-109(2) (Reissue 1980); the inability to determine a “sum certain” without reference to outside sources, namely the indebtedness of the undersigned; and the conditional nature of the promise to pay, which is inconsistent with § 3-104(1)(b).”
N. Bank v. Pefferoni Pizza Co., 555 N.W.2d 338 (Neb. Ct. App. 1996). “§ 3-109, comment 2 (Reissue 1980) (noting change in statutory language from “fixed or determinable future time” to “definite time”).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 3-109(a) — 1 case
N. Bank v. Pefferoni Pizza Co., 555 N.W.2d 338 (Neb. Ct. App. 1996). “§ 3-109, comment 2 (Reissue 1980) (noting change in statutory language from “fixed or determinable future time” to “definite time”).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 3-109(l)(d) — 1 case
N. Bank v. Pefferoni Pizza Co., 555 N.W.2d 338 (Neb. Ct. App. 1996). “§ 3-109, comment 2 (Reissue 1980) (noting change in statutory language from “fixed or determinable future time” to “definite time”).”
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.