Legal Opinion

Sandlovich v. State

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided January 31, 1920No. 20733PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Error to the district court for Lancaster county: Frederick E. Shepherd, Judge.

1Opinion of the CourtAldrich, J.

Defendants were convicted under section 3, ch. 201, Laws 1917, of buying stolen property. Both defendants prosecute error.

Three assignments of error are relied upon for reversal: First, that the act under which the prosecution is brought is unconstitutional for the reason that the act contains more than one subject, and the same is not clearly expressed in its title; second, the information does not sufficiently describe the ownership of the property alleged to have been bought, and that the information does not state facts sufficient to constitute a crime; third, the defendants were coerced…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Baughn v. UreNebraska Supreme Court · 1912
  2. State v. MartinWashington Supreme Court · 1917
  3. Goff v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1911
  4. Cordson v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1906
  5. Waller v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1910

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. McKenzie v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Jurgenson v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1958
  3. Trosper v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1934
  4. Birdhead v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1920
  5. Village of Utica v. RumelinNebraska Supreme Court · 1938

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API