Legal Opinion

Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Hughes

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 15, 1936No. 25687PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMatthias, J.

The question here presented is whether the verdict and judgment are contrary to law, it being the contention of counsel for plaintiff in error that there was no evidence to support the charge that the sale of the article of food in question was violative of Section 12760, General Code, and hence constituted negligence per se. The provisions of that section are as follows: “Whoever sells, offers for sale or has in possession with intent to sell, diseased, corrupted, adulterated or unwholesome provisions without making the condition thereof known to the buyer, shall be fined not more than fifty…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Portage Markets Co. v. GeorgeOhio Supreme Court · 1924

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Taylor v. City of CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Hunter v. Derby Foods, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1940
  3. Donaldson v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1938
  4. Hughes Provision Co. v. La Mear Poultry & Egg Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1951
  5. Kniess v. Armour & Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1938

14 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