Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Banks v. Nordstrom

787 P.2d 953 (1990)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 33,600+ case briefs...

Banks v. Nordstrom

Washington Court of Appeals

787 P.2d 953 (1990)

Facts

On December 26, 1987, Gail Smith (defendant), a Nordstrom security officer (defendant), caught Sharon Banks shoplifting. Smith called the police, who arrested Sharon. Because Sharon had the driver’s license of her sister, Lisa Banks (plaintiff), Sharon was misidentified as Lisa. On January 5, 1988, Evelyn Sevelette (defendant), a Nordstrom civil-claims manager, sent Lisa a restitution demand. The prosecutor’s office notified Lisa that she would be arraigned on January 11 on a charge of first-degree theft. Lisa immediately contacted Smith. After meeting Lisa on January 6, Smith confirmed Lisa was not the shoplifter and gave her a letter on Nordstrom stationery to that effect. Smith said she would get the charges dismissed and called a police detective to explain. Lisa learned the charges had not been dropped and tried to contact Nordstrom, reaching only Sevelette, who claimed she could not help. On January 11, Lisa was arraigned, booked, and released, with a hearing scheduled for January 22. Lisa retained an attorney, who attempted to contact Nordstrom, finally reaching security manager Mike Wargin on January 21. Wargin had not contacted the prosecutor. Lisa’s attorney also sent Sevelette a letter. Upon receiving the letter on January 22, Sevelette messaged the prosecutor a notarized statement that Lisa was not the shoplifter. The charges were dropped just before Lisa’s hearing. Lisa sued Nordstrom, Smith, and Sevelette, asserting malicious prosecution among other claims and seeking damages for emotional distress and attorney’s fees. To support Nordstrom’s motion for summary judgment, a police detective signed an affidavit stating Nordstrom’s involvement in a shoplifting case ceases at arrest and Nordstrom could not prevent Lisa’s arraignment. The trial court granted summary judgment. Lisa appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Ringold, J.)

Concurrence/Dissent (Coleman, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 603,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 603,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 603,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 33,600 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership