Busch v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
BRADY, Commissioner.
The determinative issue in this appeal is whether there was a violation of any legal duty defendant owed plaintiff as a proximate result of which violation plaintiff’s injury occurred. The trial court held there was no such case presented, sustained defendant’s timely after-trial motion for judgment in accordance with its motion for a directed verdict, and set aside the judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $6,500.00.
It will be of assistance in understanding the factual situation presented by this appeal to have plaintiff’s pleading, theory, and manner of…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Marie E. Pogue and William T. Pogue v. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1957
- Hart v. Emery-Bird-Thayer Dry Goods Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1938
- Clymer v. TennisonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1964
- Supreme Liberty L. Ins. Co. v. PemeltonCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1940
- Simpson v. DuffyNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1952
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Kramer v. May Lumber CompanyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1968
- Edwards v. Springfield Coca-Cola Bottling Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1973
- Pagano v. Kolbrener, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1971
- Melton ex rel. Melton v. Allied Supermarkets, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1970