Great Atlantic & Pac. Tea Co. v. Paul
Maryland Court of Appeals
256 Md. 643, 261 A.2d 731 (1970)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
John Paul (plaintiff), a retired police officer, was shopping in a grocery store owned by Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company (A&P) (defendant). A store employee believed that Paul had secreted and intended to steal a can of tick spray. The employee confronted Paul and accused him of being a thief. The employee frisked Paul, causing canned goods to be knocked to the floor. The employee’s actions got the attention of, and elicited stares from, nearby shoppers. Paul sued A&P for slander. The jury found for Paul. On appeal, A&P argued that Paul had failed to establish the element of publication because there was no proof that the employee spoke the defamatory words in the hearing of a third person who personally knew or knew of Paul and therefore whose opinion of Paul might reasonably have been affected.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Digges, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
