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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 3-302 (2026)

Airport hazard; public nuisance; prevention

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

(1) It is hereby found that an airport hazard endangers the lives and property of the users of an airport and occupants of land in its vicinity and also, if of the obstruction type, in effect reduces the size of the area available for the landing, takeoff, and maneuvering of aircraft, thus tending to destroy or impair the utility of the airport and the public investment therein.

(2) Accordingly, it is hereby declared that (a) the creation or establishment of an airport hazard is a public nuisance and an injury to the community served by the airport in question, (b) it is necessary in the interest of the public health, public safety, and general welfare that the creation or establishment of airport hazards be prevented, and (c) the prevention of airport hazards should be accomplished, to the extent legally possible, by the exercise of the police power, without compensation.

(3) It is further declared that both the prevention of the creation or establishment of airport hazards and the elimination, removal, alteration, mitigation, or marking and lighting of existing airport hazards are public purposes for which political subdivisions may raise and expend public funds and acquire land or property interests therein.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1977–2020 · leading case: Maddox Ex Rel. Fitzgerald v. First Westroads Bank, 256 N.W.2d 647 (Neb. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Maddox Ex Rel. Fitzgerald v. First Westroads Bank, 256 N.W.2d 647 (Neb. 1977). · cites it 2× “, establish when payment on a negotiable instrument or check becomes final in favor of a holder in due course, but Center Bank in this case is not a holder in due course.”
Gottsch v. Bank of Stapleton, 458 N.W.2d 443 (Neb. 1990). “§ 3-302 (Reissue 1980). Furthermore, a “holder takes the instrument for value.”
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Percival, 752 F. Supp. 313 (D. Neb. 1990). · cites it 3× “§ 3-302: (1) A holder in due course is a holder who takes the instrument (a) for value; and (b) in good faith; and • (c) without notice that it is overdue or has been dishonored or of any defense or claim to it on the part of any person.”
Brown v. United States Nat. Bank of Omaha, 371 N.W.2d 692 (Neb. 1985). · cites it 2× “title (Section 7-507) or of a security (Section 8-306) or is forged or fraudulent or there is fraud in the transaction (a) the issuer must honor the draft or demand for payment if honor is demanded by a negotiating bank or other holder of the draft or demand which has taken the…”
John Deere Co. v. Boelus State Bank, 448 N.W.2d 163 (Neb. 1989). · cites it 4× “The payee of an instrument may be a holder in due course if he meets the requirements of § 3-302. Section 3-302 and comment 2 thereto.”
Ashland State Bank v. Elkhorn Racquetball, Inc., 520 N.W.2d 189 (Neb. 1994). “§ 3-302(1) (Reissue 1980) provided: “A holder in due course is a holder who takes the instrument (a) for value; and (b) in good faith; and (c) without notice that it is overdue or has been dishonored or of any defense against or claim to it on the part of any person.”
Sanitary & Improvement Dist. No. 32 v. Cont'l W. Corp., 343 N.W.2d 314 (Neb. 1983). · cites it 4× “§ 3-302 (Reissue 1980) has provided in part: “(1) A holder in due course is a holder who takes the instrument (a) for value; and (b) in good faith; and (c) without notice that it is overdue or has been dishonored or of any defense against or claim to it on the part of any person.”
Bank of Valley v. Mattson, 339 N.W.2d 923 (Neb. 1983). “§ 3-302 (Reissue 1980) defines a holder in due course as a holder who takes the instrument for value, in good faith, and without notice that it is overdue or has been dishonored or of any defense against or claim to it on the part of any person.”
Walker v. Probandt, 25 Neb. Ct. App. 30 (Neb. Ct. App. 2017). “§ 3-302 (Reissue 2001) provides that a holder in due course means the holder takes an instrument (1) for value, (2) in good faith, (3) without notice that the instrument is overdue or has been dishonored or that there is an uncured default with respect to payment of another…”
N. Bank v. Pefferoni Pizza Co., 555 N.W.2d 338 (Neb. Ct. App. 1996). “§ 3-302(1) (Reissue 1980). The collateral note may be enforceable as a contract and therefore subject to all claims and defenses arising out of that contract, see P P Inc.”
Henderson State Bank v. Lowderman (D. Neb. 2020). · cites it 3× “§ 3-302 (Westlaw 2020). 2 or should have known that the four checks were subject to claims and defenses when it accepted such checks; that Lowderman is entitled to the defenses identified in Neb.”
Lewis v. Opstein, 510 N.W.2d 382 (Neb. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “A holder in due course is a holder who takes the instrument for value, in good faith, and without notice that it is overdue, has been dishonored, or is subject to a defense or claim by any person.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 3-302(1) — 4 cases
Ashland State Bank v. Elkhorn Racquetball, Inc., 520 N.W.2d 189 (Neb. 1994). “§ 3-302(1) (Reissue 1980) provided: “A holder in due course is a holder who takes the instrument (a) for value; and (b) in good faith; and (c) without notice that it is overdue or has been dishonored or of any defense against or claim to it on the part of any person.”
John Deere Co. v. Boelus State Bank, 448 N.W.2d 163 (Neb. 1989). “The payee of an instrument may be a holder in due course if he meets the requirements of § 3-302. Section 3-302 and comment 2 thereto.”
N. Bank v. Pefferoni Pizza Co., 555 N.W.2d 338 (Neb. Ct. App. 1996). “§ 3-302(1) (Reissue 1980). The collateral note may be enforceable as a contract and therefore subject to all claims and defenses arising out of that contract, see P P Inc.”
Lewis v. Opstein, 510 N.W.2d 382 (Neb. Ct. App. 1993). “A holder in due course is a holder who takes the instrument for value, in good faith, and without notice that it is overdue, has been dishonored, or is subject to a defense or claim by any person.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 3-302(1)(b) — 1 case
Sanitary & Improvement Dist. No. 32 v. Cont'l W. Corp., 343 N.W.2d 314 (Neb. 1983). “§ 3-302 (Reissue 1980) has provided in part: “(1) A holder in due course is a holder who takes the instrument (a) for value; and (b) in good faith; and (c) without notice that it is overdue or has been dishonored or of any defense against or claim to it on the part of any person.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 3-302(2) — 1 case
Sanitary & Improvement Dist. No. 32 v. Cont'l W. Corp., 343 N.W.2d 314 (Neb. 1983). “§ 3-302 (Reissue 1980) has provided in part: “(1) A holder in due course is a holder who takes the instrument (a) for value; and (b) in good faith; and (c) without notice that it is overdue or has been dishonored or of any defense against or claim to it on the part of any person.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 3-302(a)(2) — 1 case
Lewis v. Opstein, 510 N.W.2d 382 (Neb. Ct. App. 1993). “A holder in due course is a holder who takes the instrument for value, in good faith, and without notice that it is overdue, has been dishonored, or is subject to a defense or claim by any person.”
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.