Blomquist v. Board of Educational Lands Funds

2 Citing cases

  1. State v. Rosenberger

    187 Neb. 726 (Neb. 1972)   Cited 9 times

    Such a conclusion would either remove the sole basis for the finding of unconstitutionality in Watkins, or would itself result in an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation. The court relied upon the common law rule that improvements which become a part of the real estate may not be removed and do not become the property of the lessee in the absence of an agreement, express or implied, or a statute indicating otherwise, citing Blomquist v. Board of Educational Lands Funds, 170 Neb. 741, 104 N.W.2d 264. Even assuming that the statutes for more than 50 years were unconstitutional for lack of due process in taking the property of the lessee tenants without notice, they at least constituted an agreement, express or implied, or an indication and commitment by the State that the lessee of school lands had a compensable interest in "improvements" placed on the school lands by the lessee in reliance on the statutes.

  2. State v. Bardsley

    185 Neb. 629 (Neb. 1970)   Cited 14 times

    "The general rule that improvements which become a part of the real estate may not be removed and do not become the property of the lessee is applicable in the absence of agreement, express or implied, or a statute indicating otherwise." Blomquist v. Board of Educational Lands Funds, 170 Neb. 741, 104 N.W.2d 264. This is the common law rule.