Neb. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 37
Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 37-729 (2026)

Terms, defined

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

For purposes of sections 37-729 to 37-736:

(1) Land includes roads, water, watercourses, private ways, and buildings, structures, and machinery or equipment thereon when attached to the realty;

(2) Owner includes tenant, lessee, occupant, or person in control of the premises;

(3) Recreational purposes includes, but is not limited to, any one or any combination of the following: Hunting, fishing, swimming, boating, camping, picnicking, hiking, pleasure driving, nature study, waterskiing, winter sports, and visiting, viewing, or enjoying historical, archaeological, scenic, or scientific sites, or otherwise using land for purposes of the user; and

(4) Charge means the amount of money asked in return for an invitation to enter or go upon the land.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1999–2024 · leading case: Iodence v. City of All., 700 N.W.2d 562 (Neb. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Iodence v. City of All., 700 N.W.2d 562 (Neb. 2005). · cites it 44× “The issue presented in this case is whether the city is immune from liability under the Recreation Liability Act (RLA), Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 37-729 to 37-736 (Reissue 2004).”
Bronsen v. Dawes Cnty., 722 N.W.2d 17 (Neb. 2006). · cites it 11× “*322 In response to defendants’ motions for summary judgment, the district court found that under Nebraska’s Recreation Liability Act (RLA), Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 37-729 to 37-736 (Reissue 2004), Bronsen was using the courthouse lawn for a recreational purpose and that both Dawes…”
Teters v. Scottsbluff Pub. Schs., 592 N.W.2d 155 (Neb. 1999). · cites it 11× “…Rev. Stat. § 37-733 (Reissue 1998), § 37-1005 is now Neb. Rev. Stat. § 37-734 (Reissue 1998), and § 37-1008 is now Neb. Rev. Stat. § 37-729 (Reissue 1998). ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Teters assigns as error that (1) §§ 37-734 and 37-729(4) are unconstitutionally vague in that…”
Connelly v. City of Omaha, 769 N.W.2d 394 (Neb. 2009). · cites it 2× “[25] Because § 25-1315 was erroneously applied, there is no final order from which an appeal may be taken in this case.”
Dykes v. Scotts Bluff Cnty. Agr. Soc., 617 N.W.2d 817 (Neb. 2000). · cites it 35× “§§ 37-1001 to 37-1008 (Reissue 1993), now codified at Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 37-729 to 37-736 (Reissue 1998), and then filed a motion for summary judgment.”
Dykes v. Scotts Bluff Cnty. Agric. Soc'y, Inc., 617 N.W.2d 817 (Neb. 2000). · cites it 36× “In this appeal, we are asked to address whether Neb. Rev. Stat. § 37-729 (3) (Reissue 1998), defining recreational purposes under the Recreation Liability Act (the Act), is unconstitutionally vague and whether the viewing of livestock exhibits at a county fair is a recreational…”
Brown v. State, 305 Neb. 111 (Neb. 2020). · cites it 2× “19 Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 37-729 to 37-736 (Reissue 2004).”
Lonergan v. May, 53 S.W.3d 122 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “§§ 70-16-301 to -302 (1999); Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 37-729 to -736 (1991); Nev.”
Kimberly Ann Sallee, Individually & as Next Friend of Lucas Gregory Durkop & Maria Christina Rivera, Matthew James Sallee, & James Allan Sallee v. Matthew R. Stewart & Diana Stewart D/B/A Stewartland Holsteins, 827 N.W.2d 128 (Iowa 2013). “§ 89-2-3 (West 1999); Neb.Rev.Stat. § 37-729(3) (2008); Nev.Rev.”
Bronsen v. Dawes Cnty., 704 N.W.2d 273 (Neb. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 9× “The district court granted motions for summary judgment filed by the County and FTD, finding that both the County and FTD were immune from liability pursuant to the Nebraska Recreational Liability Act (RLA), Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 37-729 to 37-736 (Reissue 2004).”
MacFarlane v. Sarpy Cty. Sch. Dist. 77-0037, 316 Neb. 705 (Neb. 2024). · cites it 2× “The RLA’s stated purpose is to encourage landowners to open their property to the public for “recreational purposes” by limiting their tort liability.”
Hodson v. Taylor (Neb. 2015). · cites it 2× “In so finding, the district court found 1 Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 37-729 through 37-736 (Reissue 2008).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 37-729(2) — 3 cases
Bronsen v. Dawes Cnty., 722 N.W.2d 17 (Neb. 2006). “*322 In response to defendants’ motions for summary judgment, the district court found that under Nebraska’s Recreation Liability Act (RLA), Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 37-729 to 37-736 (Reissue 2004), Bronsen was using the courthouse lawn for a recreational purpose and that both Dawes…”
Iodence v. City of All., 700 N.W.2d 562 (Neb. 2005). “The issue presented in this case is whether the city is immune from liability under the Recreation Liability Act (RLA), Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 37-729 to 37-736 (Reissue 2004).”
Bronsen v. Dawes Cnty., 704 N.W.2d 273 (Neb. Ct. App. 2005). “The district court granted motions for summary judgment filed by the County and FTD, finding that both the County and FTD were immune from liability pursuant to the Nebraska Recreational Liability Act (RLA), Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 37-729 to 37-736 (Reissue 2004).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 37-729(3) — 7 cases
Iodence v. City of All., 700 N.W.2d 562 (Neb. 2005). “The issue presented in this case is whether the city is immune from liability under the Recreation Liability Act (RLA), Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 37-729 to 37-736 (Reissue 2004).”
Bronsen v. Dawes Cnty., 722 N.W.2d 17 (Neb. 2006). “*322 In response to defendants’ motions for summary judgment, the district court found that under Nebraska’s Recreation Liability Act (RLA), Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 37-729 to 37-736 (Reissue 2004), Bronsen was using the courthouse lawn for a recreational purpose and that both Dawes…”
Dykes v. Scotts Bluff Cnty. Agr. Soc., 617 N.W.2d 817 (Neb. 2000). “§§ 37-1001 to 37-1008 (Reissue 1993), now codified at Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 37-729 to 37-736 (Reissue 1998), and then filed a motion for summary judgment.”
Dykes v. Scotts Bluff Cnty. Agric. Soc'y, Inc., 617 N.W.2d 817 (Neb. 2000). “In this appeal, we are asked to address whether Neb. Rev. Stat. § 37-729 (3) (Reissue 1998), defining recreational purposes under the Recreation Liability Act (the Act), is unconstitutionally vague and whether the viewing of livestock exhibits at a county fair is a recreational…”
Teters v. Scottsbluff Pub. Schs., 592 N.W.2d 155 (Neb. 1999). “…Rev. Stat. § 37-733 (Reissue 1998), § 37-1005 is now Neb. Rev. Stat. § 37-734 (Reissue 1998), and § 37-1008 is now Neb. Rev. Stat. § 37-729 (Reissue 1998). ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Teters assigns as error that (1) §§ 37-734 and 37-729(4) are unconstitutionally vague in that…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 37-729(4) — 2 cases
Teters v. Scottsbluff Pub. Schs., 592 N.W.2d 155 (Neb. 1999). “…Rev. Stat. § 37-733 (Reissue 1998), § 37-1005 is now Neb. Rev. Stat. § 37-734 (Reissue 1998), and § 37-1008 is now Neb. Rev. Stat. § 37-729 (Reissue 1998). ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Teters assigns as error that (1) §§ 37-734 and 37-729(4) are unconstitutionally vague in that…”
Bronsen v. Dawes Cnty., 704 N.W.2d 273 (Neb. Ct. App. 2005). “The district court granted motions for summary judgment filed by the County and FTD, finding that both the County and FTD were immune from liability pursuant to the Nebraska Recreational Liability Act (RLA), Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 37-729 to 37-736 (Reissue 2004).”
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.