Legal Opinion
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Eiseman
Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)
Decided February 19, 1935PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the Court by
Judge Richardson
Affirming.
This is an action by a customer of a retail dealer to recover of Mm damages for the ill effects to her health, on account of the sale of deleterious food sold her for her own use. Her cause of action is predicated on negligence, and not on an implied warranty. The defenses are a traverse and contributory negligence.
The developed facts are: Nora E. Eiseman with her two sons resided at 638 South Forty-third street, Louisville, Ky. The Great Atlante & Pacific Tea Com pany had engaged for four or five years at Cecil and Broadway streets, later at…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- Kellogg Bridge Co. v. HamiltonSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Ryan v. Progressive Grocery Stores, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1931
- Dushane v. BenedictSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Burkhardt v. Armour & Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1932
- Rinaldi v. . Mohican Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1918
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Arnett v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1968
- Big Sandy Community Action Program v. ChaffinsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1973
- Colonna v. Rosedale Dairy Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1936
- W. E. Caldwell Co., Inc. v. BordersCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1946
- Martin v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1946
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.