Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Nash v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided February 11, 1969No. Docket 1,183Published

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

  1. Italia Societa Rer Azioni Di Navigazione v. Oregon Stevedoring Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1964
  2. Siidekum v. Animal Rescue League of PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
  3. Grasberger v. Liebert & Obert, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  4. W. T. Grant Co. v. OwensCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1928
  5. Vance Trucking Company v. Canal Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 1966

3 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