Legal Opinion

Narregang v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 19, 1923No. Docket No. 76PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMoore, J.

The plaintiff reviews by writ of error a judgment based upon a directed verdict in favor of the defendant. No testimony was offered on the part of the defendant, and the facts are not in dispute. The defendant is operating a store at Grand Haven, which has two rooms, each of them is about 25 feet wide by 35 feet long. The front room is used to retail the goods. The back room is used to store the goods. The floor in the front room is made of hard maple. The plaintiff is the manager of this store and had been for 18 months. Part of his duty was to oil the maple floor every Saturday night. He…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Scendar v. Winona Copper Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1912
  2. Lydman v. De HaasMichigan Supreme Court · 1915

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Hulett v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1941
  2. Yearsley v. City BankMichigan Supreme Court · 1960
  3. Daigle v. BerkowitzMichigan Supreme Court · 1935
  4. Van Brocklin v. BragmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1947
  5. Mondey v. Continental Realty Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1938

1 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