Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Douglas

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided May 4, 1984No. 84-199Published

1Dissent

Hastings, Shanahan, and Grant, JJ., and Moran, D.J.,

dissenting.

For the reasons hereinafter stated we dissent from the acquittal on specification No. 1 — duty not to misrepresent.

Paul L. Douglas, before being elected Attorney General of the State of Nebraska, invested in the commodities market with a friend, Paul E. Gaiter, a Lincoln attorney. That venture into commodities *250was unsuccessful, for Douglas and Gaiter lost $40,000 —a $20,000 loss sustained by each in the market endeavors.

After Douglas’ election as Attorney General, Gaiter told Douglas about a real estate investment, namely, real…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Gardner v. BroderickSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. Driscoll v. Burlington-Bristol Bridge Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1952
  3. Midland National Bank of Minneapolis v. PerranoskiSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
  4. Marshall Impeachment CaseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
  5. Rettinger ex rel. Standard Oil Co. v. PierpontNebraska Supreme Court · 1944

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

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

Powered by the Exa API