Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Mrs. Sarah Smart v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., Quinton Smart v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 29051_1 (1970)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 29051_1 Visitors: 23
Filed: Sep. 02, 1970
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 431 F.2d 930 Mrs. Sarah SMART, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., Defendant-Appellant. Quinton SMART, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., Defendant-Appellant. No. 29051 Summary Calendar. * United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. September 2, 1970. Larry E. Pedrick, Wilson G. Pedrick, Waycross, Ga., for defendant-appellant. Delman L. Minchew, Waycross, Ga., for plaintiffs-appellees. Before THORNBERRY, COLEMAN and CLARK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: 1 This diversity
More

431 F.2d 930

Mrs. Sarah SMART, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
Quinton SMART, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 29051 Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

September 2, 1970.

Larry E. Pedrick, Wilson G. Pedrick, Waycross, Ga., for defendant-appellant.

Delman L. Minchew, Waycross, Ga., for plaintiffs-appellees.

Before THORNBERRY, COLEMAN and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

This diversity case originated as a personal injury action growing out of a bad fall taken by Sarah Smart when she stepped on a grape or grapes at appellant's grocery store. Both Mrs. Smart and her husband filed suits against appellant, and the cases were tried together to a jury, with separate verdicts being rendered in favor of Mr. and Mrs. Smart. Judgment was entered for plaintiffs on the basis of the jury verdicts, and Winn-Dixie appeals.

2

Appellant has advanced numerous assignments of error. We have carefully examined each of appellant's contentions in light of the record to determine whether any error was committed that would require a reversal of the judgment. Appellant essentially attempts to retry the case on appeal. This it cannot do. Having found no error, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

3

Affirmed.

Notes:

*

[1] Rule 18, 5th Cir.; See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York, et al., 5th Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer