Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 17,300+ case briefs...

Gortarez v. Smitty’s Super Valu, Inc.

Arizona Supreme Court
680 P.2d 807 (1984)


 

Facts

Ernest Gortarez (plaintiff), a 16-year-old boy, and his 18-year-old cousin Albert Hernandez (plaintiff), were shopping in a Smitty’s Super Valu, Inc. (Smitty’s) (defendant) store one evening. As the young men were leaving the store, a store clerk had a “hunch” that Gortarez had taken, without paying for, a 59 cent vaporizer commonly used to scent a vehicle. The store clerk notified an assistant manager and the store’s security guard, Daniel Gibson. The three store employees ran after the two young men and stopped them outside of the store. Gibson began searching Hernandez without saying what he was looking for. During the search, Hernandez did not resist and repeatedly denied that he or Gortarez had taken anything. At the same time, Gortarez yelled at Gibson to leave Hernandez alone. A struggle ensued and Gibson placed Gortarez in a choke hold. Gibson kept Gortarez in the choke hold even after Gortarez insisted that he had left the vaporizer inside of the store. Gortarez suffered physical injuries as a result. After a store clerk confirmed that the vaporizer was where Gortarez said he had left it inside of the store, the young men were released. Gortarez required medical treatment for his injuries. The young men and their parents (collectively Plaintiffs) filed suit against Smitty’s and Gibson (collectively Defendants) for false arrest and false imprisonment, assault, and battery. After a jury trial, the court directed a verdict for Defendants on the false arrest and false imprisonment counts. The jury returned a verdict for Gibson on the assault and battery counts. Plaintiffs appealed. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The Arizona Supreme Court granted certiorari to review.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Feldman, 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 457,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read 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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 457,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 17,300 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.

Questions & Answers


Why would the supreme court say that the trail court was in the best position to judge whether the store had reason to suspect the young men of stealing?

Why would the supreme court rule that the trial court was in a better position to judge whether the store had a good reason for suspecting the young men, when one of the young men asked if he can pay for the air fresher up front. If the young man intended to steal the item he would have put it in his pocket or something, not gotten the clerk attention about it.

Want to see this answer?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and get access to all answers in our Q&A database

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial

Tempor minim nulla id mollit ullamco consequat aliquip adipisicing irure officia tempor. Magna sit eiusmod laborum proident laboris ex sunt. Non labore ex officia irure qui et laboris aliqua in minim. Labore velit aliqua proident officia cillum occaecat dolore tempor. Ullamco in consequat labore amet laborum proident reprehenderit anim cillum excepteur. Elit do nostrud nisi excepteur sit dolor pariatur fugiat. Nisi incididunt incididunt do est velit excepteur enim excepteur incididunt mollit pariatur. Irure tempor non in esse do. Laboris eiusmod in ad ut enim est duis ad sint veniam eiusmod.