Nash v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
Michigan Court of Appeals
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLevin, J.
I agree with my colleagues in their affirmance of the jury’s verdict in favor of plaintiffs Mary Lee Nash and Dan Nash against all 3 defendants, the store owner, Sears, Roebuck & Company, the guard service, Heidt’s Protective Service, Inc., and the guard, Art Keolian. I would, however, grant Sears a new trial on its claim that Heidt’s breached its contract with Sears when it supplied a guard alleged by Sears to have been unqualified; on that issue the trial judge erred in his charge to the jury and in refusing to give Sears’ requested charge.
*567I.
Plaintiff Mary Lee Nash was wrongfully accused of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Italia Societa Rer Azioni Di Navigazione v. Oregon Stevedoring Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Siidekum v. Animal Rescue League of PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
- Grasberger v. Liebert & Obert, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
- W. T. Grant Co. v. OwensCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1928
- Vance Trucking Company v. Canal Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 1966
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.