If an airport is owned or controlled by a political
subdivision and any airport hazard area appertaining to such airport is located
outside of the political subdivision's zoning
jurisdiction, the political subdivision owning or controlling
the airport and the political subdivision or
political subdivisions within whose zoning jurisdiction the
airport hazard area or areas are located may,
by ordinance or resolution duly adopted, create a joint airport zoning board,
which board shall have the same power to adopt, by resolution approved by a majority of the board, airport
zoning regulations applicable to an airport hazard area as that vested
by section 3-303 in any political subdivision
within whose zoning
jurisdiction such area is located. Any airport zoning regulation, or any
amendment thereto, adopted by a joint airport zoning board shall be filed
with the official or administrative agency responsible for the enforcement
of zoning regulations in each of the political subdivisions participating
in the creation of the joint airport zoning board and shall be enforced as
provided in section 3-319.
Notes of Decisions
Ashland State Bank v. Elkhorn Racquetball, Inc., 520 N.W.2d 189 (Neb. 1994).
· cites it 4× “§ 3-304(1) (Reissue 1980). As we examine the record and the note in question, we find that although the note had been transferred and assigned several times and contained a “paid in full” notation, the note also contained satisfactory explanations of the transactions and showed…”
Sanitary & Improvement Dist. No. 32 v. Cont'l W. Corp., 343 N.W.2d 314 (Neb. 1983).
· cites it 2× “§ 3-304 (Reissue 1980) has listed a variety of circumstances in which a purchaser is deemed to have notice, and others which do not of themselves give the purchaser notice of a claim or defense.”
State ex rel. Couns. for Dis. v. Beauvais, 308 Neb. 704 (Neb. 2021).
“704 § 3-304 of the disciplinary rules provides that the following may be considered as discipline for attorney misconduct: (A) Misconduct shall be grounds for: (1) Disbarment by the Court; or (2) Suspension by the Court; or (3) Probation by the Court in lieu of or subsequent to…”
Lewis v. Opstein, 510 N.W.2d 382 (Neb. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 4× “” § 3-304 comment 5 (Reissue 1980). See § 3-307 comment 2 (Reissue 1992) (mere notice of the fiduciary status and of the fact that the proceeds of the instrument are being used for the personal benefit of the fiduciary is not enough to put the taker on notice of a breach of…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 3-304(1) — 1 case
Ashland State Bank v. Elkhorn Racquetball, Inc., 520 N.W.2d 189 (Neb. 1994).
“§ 3-304(1) (Reissue 1980). As we examine the record and the note in question, we find that although the note had been transferred and assigned several times and contained a “paid in full” notation, the note also contained satisfactory explanations of the transactions and showed…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 3-304(2) — 2 cases
Ashland State Bank v. Elkhorn Racquetball, Inc., 520 N.W.2d 189 (Neb. 1994).
“§ 3-304(1) (Reissue 1980). As we examine the record and the note in question, we find that although the note had been transferred and assigned several times and contained a “paid in full” notation, the note also contained satisfactory explanations of the transactions and showed…”
Lewis v. Opstein, 510 N.W.2d 382 (Neb. Ct. App. 1993).
“” § 3-304 comment 5 (Reissue 1980). See § 3-307 comment 2 (Reissue 1992) (mere notice of the fiduciary status and of the fact that the proceeds of the instrument are being used for the personal benefit of the fiduciary is not enough to put the taker on notice of a breach of…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 3-304(4)(e) — 2 cases
Ashland State Bank v. Elkhorn Racquetball, Inc., 520 N.W.2d 189 (Neb. 1994).
“§ 3-304(1) (Reissue 1980). As we examine the record and the note in question, we find that although the note had been transferred and assigned several times and contained a “paid in full” notation, the note also contained satisfactory explanations of the transactions and showed…”
Lewis v. Opstein, 510 N.W.2d 382 (Neb. Ct. App. 1993).
“” § 3-304 comment 5 (Reissue 1980). See § 3-307 comment 2 (Reissue 1992) (mere notice of the fiduciary status and of the fact that the proceeds of the instrument are being used for the personal benefit of the fiduciary is not enough to put the taker on notice of a breach of…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 3-304(B) — 1 case
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.