to prove a value of more than $100. The value of articles stolen from a stock of merchandise may be established by proof of the price at which the articles and other like articles are being offered and sold at the place where the articles were stolen. Robinson v. State, 107 Neb. 591, 186 N.W. 977 (1922). In Robinson, the court held that “[a]s to the proof of value, there is no better way of showing the market value of any article than the price at which it and others of its class are being offered and sold on the market.” 107 Neb. at 592, 186 N.W. at 978. However, in the case at hand, as' in State v. Garza, 241 Neb. 256, 487 N.W.2d 551 (1992), there is no evidence that the merchandise was actually sold for that value. See, also, State v. Sexton, 240 Neb. 466, 482 N.W.2d 567 (1992) (<HOLDING>). The Garza court held that price tags alone do
holding that evidence that the defendant and a witness sold drugs together was relevant to prove how the witness knew the defendant holding that plaintiff was entitled to sue under rule 10b5 for the difference between the price and the value received from the sale of the security where as here the evil is not the price at which plaintiff bought but the fact of being induced to buy holding that evidence was sufficient where there was testimony that appellant was seen threatening the victim and that other people were afraid holding that evidence was sufficient to establish aggravated assault where appellant was seen pointing and firing a gun at two women holding that police officers testimony that defendant was seen dragging sack toward parking garage with tag reflecting price at which item was being bought and sold on day of offense was sufficient evidence to prove value