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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 3-309 (2026)

Zoning regulations; requirements; reasonable

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

All airport zoning regulations adopted under the Airport Zoning Act shall be reasonable and not impose any requirement or restriction which is not reasonably necessary to effectuate the purposes of the act. In determining what regulations it may adopt, each political subdivision and joint airport zoning board shall consider, among other things, the character of the flying operations expected to be conducted at the airport, the nature of the terrain within the airport hazard area, the character of the neighborhood, and the uses to which the property to be zoned is put and adaptable. If an airport layout plan has been submitted for approval to the Federal Aviation Administration with a proposed instrument runway depicted thereon and such airport layout plan is conditionally or unconditionally approved without such proposed instrument runway, the political subdivision shall adopt or revise, as necessary, airport zoning regulations to protect any approach zone for a visual runway only.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1994–2024 · leading case: Fales v. Norine, 644 N.W.2d 513 (Neb. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fales v. Norine, 644 N.W.2d 513 (Neb. 2002). · cites it 26× “§ 3-309 (Reissue 2001). That section allows a claimant to enforce a lost, stolen, or destroyed instrument if the person was in possession of the note when the loss occurred and the instrument was not voluntarily transferred or lawfully seized.”
State ex rel. Couns. for Discipline of the Neb. Supreme Court v. Nimmer, 916 N.W.2d 732 (Neb. 2018). · cites it 2× “He is directed to comply with Neb. Ct. R. § 3-316 (rev. 2014), and upon failure to do so, he shall be subject to punishment for contempt of this court.”
Clarke v. First Nat. Bank of Omaha, 895 N.W.2d 284 (Neb. 2017). “2 [2] Statutory interpretation presents a question of law.3 [3] Appellate courts independently review questions of law decided by a lower court.”
Walker v. Walker, 854 F. Supp. 1443 (D. Neb. 1994). · cites it 3× “2d 249, 252 (1984) (under predecessor to section 3-309 the court held that one seeking enforcement of a lost promissory note must establish the right to recovery by clear and convincing evidence).”
State ex rel. Couns. for Dis. v. Gast, 298 Neb. 203 (Neb. 2017). “See § 3-309(E). Gast signed for the certified letter on September 22, but he did not submit a writ- ten response.”
State Ex Rel. Couns. for Dis. v. Frye, 771 N.W.2d 571 (Neb. 2009). “Count II of the formal charges alleges that respondent's failure to respond to the Counsel for Discipline's inquiries was in violation of §§ 3-309(E) and 3-508.1 and Neb. Ct. R. § 3-303(B), and a violation of her oath of office as an attorney licensed to practice in the State of…”
State ex rel. Couns. for Dis. v. Nimmer, 300 Neb. 906 (Neb. 2018). · cites it 2× “After reviewing these records, the Counsel for Discipline determined there were reasonable grounds for discipline, and thus reduced the SEC’s grievance to a complaint and forwarded it to the Committee on Inquiry of the Fourth Judicial District.3 Thereafter, the inquiry panel…”
State ex rel. Couns. for Dis. v. Campbell, 318 Neb. 23 (Neb. 2024). “Because § 3-321 “does not provide for the appropriate pro- cedure in a reciprocal discipline case,” he alleges, it must be considered and construed together with §§ 3-309 and 3-310. Brief for respondent at 10.”
Clarke v. First Nat. Bank of Omaha, 296 Neb. 632 (Neb. 2017). “2 [2] Statutory interpretation presents a question of law.3 [3] Appellate courts independently review questions of law decided by a lower court.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 3-309(E) — 2 cases
State ex rel. Couns. for Dis. v. Gast, 298 Neb. 203 (Neb. 2017). “See § 3-309(E). Gast signed for the certified letter on September 22, but he did not submit a writ- ten response.”
State Ex Rel. Couns. for Dis. v. Frye, 771 N.W.2d 571 (Neb. 2009). “Count II of the formal charges alleges that respondent's failure to respond to the Counsel for Discipline's inquiries was in violation of §§ 3-309(E) and 3-508.1 and Neb. Ct. R. § 3-303(B), and a violation of her oath of office as an attorney licensed to practice in the State of…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 3-309(G) — 2 cases
State ex rel. Couns. for Discipline of the Neb. Supreme Court v. Nimmer, 916 N.W.2d 732 (Neb. 2018). “He is directed to comply with Neb. Ct. R. § 3-316 (rev. 2014), and upon failure to do so, he shall be subject to punishment for contempt of this court.”
State ex rel. Couns. for Dis. v. Nimmer, 300 Neb. 906 (Neb. 2018). “After reviewing these records, the Counsel for Discipline determined there were reasonable grounds for discipline, and thus reduced the SEC’s grievance to a complaint and forwarded it to the Committee on Inquiry of the Fourth Judicial District.3 Thereafter, the inquiry panel…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 3-309(H)(4) — 2 cases
State ex rel. Couns. for Discipline of the Neb. Supreme Court v. Nimmer, 916 N.W.2d 732 (Neb. 2018). “He is directed to comply with Neb. Ct. R. § 3-316 (rev. 2014), and upon failure to do so, he shall be subject to punishment for contempt of this court.”
State ex rel. Couns. for Dis. v. Nimmer, 300 Neb. 906 (Neb. 2018). “After reviewing these records, the Counsel for Discipline determined there were reasonable grounds for discipline, and thus reduced the SEC’s grievance to a complaint and forwarded it to the Committee on Inquiry of the Fourth Judicial District.3 Thereafter, the inquiry panel…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 3-309(a) — 2 cases
Fales v. Norine, 644 N.W.2d 513 (Neb. 2002). “§ 3-309 (Reissue 2001). That section allows a claimant to enforce a lost, stolen, or destroyed instrument if the person was in possession of the note when the loss occurred and the instrument was not voluntarily transferred or lawfully seized.”
Walker v. Walker, 854 F. Supp. 1443 (D. Neb. 1994). “2d 249, 252 (1984) (under predecessor to section 3-309 the court held that one seeking enforcement of a lost promissory note must establish the right to recovery by clear and convincing evidence).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 3-309(b) — 1 case
Fales v. Norine, 644 N.W.2d 513 (Neb. 2002). “§ 3-309 (Reissue 2001). That section allows a claimant to enforce a lost, stolen, or destroyed instrument if the person was in possession of the note when the loss occurred and the instrument was not voluntarily transferred or lawfully seized.”
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.