The Legislature
finds the duty of adjoining landowners for the construction and maintenance
of division fences to be beneficial to the public interest and welfare. Such
benefits are not confined to historical and traditional societal benefits
that accrue from the proper constraint of livestock, but also include suppression
of civil disputes and public and private nuisances and the protection of public
safety. Division fences promote the peace and security of society by the demarcation
of rural boundaries, physical separation of conflicting land uses, enhancement
of privacy, diminishment of frequency of public burden imposed by incidences
of trespass and adverse possession, and the mitigation of impacts of conflicting
land use intrusion into those areas of the state devoted to agricultural and
horticultural use.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1985–2023 · leading case:
Kotrous v. Zerbe, 846 N.W.2d 122 (Neb. 2014).
Kotrous v. Zerbe, 846 N.W.2d 122 (Neb. 2014).
· cites it 3× “The district court found that Kotrous’ cause of action arose under Nebraska’s “fence law,” which is codified under Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 34-101 to 34-117 (Reissue 2008 & Cum.”
Muller v. Weeder, 986 N.W.2d 38 (Neb. 2023).
· cites it 2× “WEEDER Weeder a set period of time to complete repairs and maintenance to his portion of the division fence, and it provided that if he failed to complete the work in accordance with the agreement, then Muller could complete the work, in which event he would “be entitled to the…”
Schnakenberg v. Schroeder, 367 N.W.2d 692 (Neb. 1985).
· cites it 4× “For their cause of action to recover damages, Schnakenbergs relied on Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 34-101 to 34-115 (Reissue 1984), relating to a division fence, and especially § 34-113.”
Dailing v. Hall, 1 S.W.3d 490 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “While Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 34-101 to 34-115 (Reissue 1984) provide a procedure for ascertaining and fixing the rights and duties of coterminous proprietors with respect to a division fence, such statutes *494 are not exclusive, but coterminous proprietors may by contract adjust…”
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.