Legal Opinion · Dissent

Brennan v. State

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided March 27, 1942No. 31148Published

1DissentSimmons, C. J.

I cannot agree with the majority opinion.

There appears to be no dispute among us on the law. The addition to the rules made in the majority opinion, “provided reliance is alone upon a false or fraudulent representation as to a future transaction, or a promise of something to be done in the future,” merely gives emphasis to what has already been stated. By the same token it gives emphasis to the undisputed sworn testimony of the complaining witness that “reliance” was “alone” upon a promise by the defendant “of something to be done in the future,” to wit, to get the note from Bottom and return…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. People v. TompkinsNew York Supreme Court · 1851

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

Powered by the Exa API