Sudie G. O'Quinn v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company

Fourth Circuit

Sudie G. O'Quinn v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company

424 F.2d 545, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9150

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 19, 1970

Docket14018

StatusPublished

This text of 424 F.2d 545 (Sudie G. O'Quinn v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sudie G. O'Quinn v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, 424 F.2d 545, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9150 (4th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

On December 7, 1966, Christmas trees were stacked against the windows and on the raised walkway in front of the A & P store in Kinston, North Carolina. Some of the trees had been tied together with cords. In obscure light at approximately 6 p. m., Mrs. O’Quinn proceeded from the parking lot in front of the store onto the walkway, took several steps, entangled the toe of her left shoe in a cord, fell, and sustained injuries. By reason of diversity of citizenship, Mrs. O’Quinn’s negligence action was tried in the United States District Court. The jury returned a verdict of $6,000 in favor of Mrs. O’Quinn.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs and record and are of the opinion that oral argument is unnecessary. Because we find no error, the judgment of the district court will be

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

On December 7, 1966, Christmas trees were stacked against the windows and on the raised walkway in front of the A & P store in Kinston, North Carolina. Some of the trees had been tied together with cords. In obscure light at approximately 6 p. m., Mrs. O’Quinn proceeded from the parking lot in front of the store onto the walkway, took several steps, entangled the toe of her left shoe in a cord, fell, and sustained injuries. By reason of diversity of citizenship, Mrs. O’Quinn’s negligence action was tried in the United States District Court. The jury returned a verdict of $6,000 in favor of Mrs. O’Quinn.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs and record and are of the opinion that oral argument is unnecessary. Because we find no error, the judgment of the district court will be

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

424 F.2d 545, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sudie-g-oquinn-v-great-atlantic-and-pacific-tea-company-ca4-1970.