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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 3-305 (2026)

Zoning regulations; comprehensive zoning ordinance

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

In the event that a political subdivision has adopted or hereafter adopts a comprehensive zoning ordinance regulating, among other things, the height of buildings, any airport zoning regulations applicable to the same area or portion thereof may be incorporated in and made a part of such comprehensive zoning regulations and be administered and enforced in connection therewith.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2021 · leading case: Gary's Implement, Inc. v. Bridgeport Tractor Parts, Inc., 702 N.W.2d 355 (Neb. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gary's Implement, Inc. v. Bridgeport Tractor Parts, Inc., 702 N.W.2d 355 (Neb. 2005). · cites it 2× “§ 3-305(a) (Reissue 2001) (discussing defenses to negotiable instruments).”
Ashland State Bank v. Elkhorn Racquetball, Inc., 520 N.W.2d 189 (Neb. 1994). · cites it 4× “The note was not overdue when the Bank accepted it, and we find that this argument is without merit.”
Newman Grove Creamery Co. v. Deaver, 302 N.W.2d 697 (Neb. 1981). · cites it 2× “Neb. U.C.C. § 3-408 (Reissue 1971) states in part: “Want or failure of consideration is a defense as against any person not having the rights of a holder in due course (section 3-305), except that no consideration is necessary for an instrument or obligation thereon given in…”
John Deere Co. v. Boelus State Bank, 448 N.W.2d 163 (Neb. 1989). · cites it 3× “and (d) the defense that he or a person through whom he holds the instrument acquired it by theft---- Section 3-305 provides: To the extent that a holder is a holder in due course he takes the instrument free from (2) all defenses of any party to the instrument with whom the…”
Sanitary & Improvement Dist. No. 32 v. Cont'l W. Corp., 343 N.W.2d 314 (Neb. 1983). · cites it 5× “§ 3-305 (Reissue 1980) as follows: “To the extent that a holder is a holder in due course he takes the instrument free from “(1) all claims to it on the part of any person; and *856 “(2) all defenses of any party to the instrument with whom the holder has not dealt except “(a)…”
Bank of Valley v. Mattson, 339 N.W.2d 923 (Neb. 1983). “§ 3-305 (Reissue 1980) provides that a “holder in due course .”
Walker v. Probandt, 25 Neb. Ct. App. 30 (Neb. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “§ 3-601 (Reissue 2001) (limiting effectiveness of discharge of obliga- tion of party to holder in due course of instrument without notice of discharge); § 3-605, comment 3 (using hypothetical stating partial payment by one borrower reduces obligation of coborrower).”
Henderson State Bank v. Lowderman (D. Neb. 2020). · cites it 9× “§ 3-305; that Plaintiff and its agents or representatives did not, in good faith, make the funds represented by such checks available; that any losses sustained by Plaintiff were caused by the unlawful, illegal, or fraudulent conduct of third parties over which Lowderman had no…”
Henderson State Bank v. Lowderman (D. Neb. 2021). · cites it 6× “§ 3-305. Defendants maintain their proposed amended answer includes more specific allegations supporting their defenses under § 3-305, including statements regarding illegality of the transaction, fraud, lack of consideration, unauthorized fraudulent alterations, fraud in the…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 3-305(2) — 2 cases
Sanitary & Improvement Dist. No. 32 v. Cont'l W. Corp., 343 N.W.2d 314 (Neb. 1983). “§ 3-305 (Reissue 1980) as follows: “To the extent that a holder is a holder in due course he takes the instrument free from “(1) all claims to it on the part of any person; and *856 “(2) all defenses of any party to the instrument with whom the holder has not dealt except “(a)…”
John Deere Co. v. Boelus State Bank, 448 N.W.2d 163 (Neb. 1989). “and (d) the defense that he or a person through whom he holds the instrument acquired it by theft---- Section 3-305 provides: To the extent that a holder is a holder in due course he takes the instrument free from (2) all defenses of any party to the instrument with whom the…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 3-305(2)(b) — 1 case
Sanitary & Improvement Dist. No. 32 v. Cont'l W. Corp., 343 N.W.2d 314 (Neb. 1983). “§ 3-305 (Reissue 1980) as follows: “To the extent that a holder is a holder in due course he takes the instrument free from “(1) all claims to it on the part of any person; and *856 “(2) all defenses of any party to the instrument with whom the holder has not dealt except “(a)…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 3-305(a) — 3 cases
Gary's Implement, Inc. v. Bridgeport Tractor Parts, Inc., 702 N.W.2d 355 (Neb. 2005). “§ 3-305(a) (Reissue 2001) (discussing defenses to negotiable instruments).”
Walker v. Probandt, 25 Neb. Ct. App. 30 (Neb. Ct. App. 2017). “§ 3-601 (Reissue 2001) (limiting effectiveness of discharge of obliga- tion of party to holder in due course of instrument without notice of discharge); § 3-605, comment 3 (using hypothetical stating partial payment by one borrower reduces obligation of coborrower).”
Henderson State Bank v. Lowderman (D. Neb. 2020). “§ 3-305; that Plaintiff and its agents or representatives did not, in good faith, make the funds represented by such checks available; that any losses sustained by Plaintiff were caused by the unlawful, illegal, or fraudulent conduct of third parties over which Lowderman had no…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 3-305(a)(1) — 1 case
Henderson State Bank v. Lowderman (D. Neb. 2020). “§ 3-305; that Plaintiff and its agents or representatives did not, in good faith, make the funds represented by such checks available; that any losses sustained by Plaintiff were caused by the unlawful, illegal, or fraudulent conduct of third parties over which Lowderman had no…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 3-305(a)(2) — 1 case
Henderson State Bank v. Lowderman (D. Neb. 2020). “§ 3-305; that Plaintiff and its agents or representatives did not, in good faith, make the funds represented by such checks available; that any losses sustained by Plaintiff were caused by the unlawful, illegal, or fraudulent conduct of third parties over which Lowderman had no…”
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.