Legal Opinion

Diefenbach v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 7, 1937No. Docket No. 9, Calendar No. 39,264PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtChandler, J.

The defendant, The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, hereinafter referred to as the A. & P. Co., is a New Jersey corporation duly licensed to transact business in the State of Michigan, owning and operating a number of stores in this State. The defendant, Earl Hester, was an em ployee of said company, being manager of the meat department in a combination grocery store and meat market located in the city of Saginaw.

On October 16, 1934, plaintiff was sitting in a barber shop directly across from the A. & P. Co. store in which the facts involved in this case arose. The proprietor of the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Atlanta & West Point Railroad v. WestSupreme Court of Georgia · 1905
  2. Kelly v. TyraSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
  3. Mulcahy v. DieudonneSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
  4. Johnson v. E. C. Clark Motor Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1913

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Stitt v. Holland Abundant Life FellowshipMichigan Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Bundy Tubing Company, a Michigan Corporation v. Royal Indemnity Company, a New York CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1962
  3. James v. AlbertsMichigan Supreme Court · 2001
  4. Bogart v. HesterNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1959
  5. Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. BurnsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1950

13 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