New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

Case No. A93A2024

by: Varsha Mandiga

Case No. A93A2024 BUSA 2106

Varsha Mandiga
GPA 4.0

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

Case Briefs
Legal Environment Of Business
Class Notes
BUSA, 2106, GSU, Ryan
25 ?




Popular in Legal Environment Of Business

Popular in Department

This 2 page Class Notes was uploaded by Varsha Mandiga on Thursday March 10, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to BUSA 2106 at Georgia State University taught by Grelecki in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 15 views.


Reviews for Case No. A93A2024


Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 03/10/16
Varsha Mandiga TAYLOR et al. v. SUPER DISCOUNT MARKET, INC. FACTS Case No. A93A2024 When: February 7 , 1994. rd       Reconsideration Denied February 23 , 1994. th       Certiorari Denied April 8 , 1994. Where: Court of Appeals of Georgia. Who: Appellant – Nick Long & Associates, Nick Long, Darryl S. Marmon.     Appellees – Drew, Eckl & Farnham, G. Randall Moody, Jennifer D. Welch.            SMITH, Judge.  What: Lawrence Taylor, Ervan Jacobs, and Randy Rayford brought suit against Super Discount                  Market, Inc. d/b/a Cub Foods seeking damages for false imprisonment. The trial court granted             Super Discount's motion for summary judgment. ISSUE(S)  Appellants contend that OCGA § 51­7­60 does not apply to the facts of this case. Court  agrees.  Appellants also maintain that Super Discount's argument that any detention of appellants was  carried out solely by Mumford in his capacity as a police officer ignores evidence in the  record, and that the evidence reveals at least a question of fact regarding whether Devens, as  well as Mumford, "detained" them tortiously. RULE(S)  OCGA § 51­7­60.  Preclusion of recovery for detention or arrest of person suspected of  shoplifting under certain circumstances.  OCGA § 16­8­14(a). Theft by shoplifting. ANAYLSIS   The statute provides a defense to claims of false arrest or false imprisonment "whenever the  owner or operator of a mercantile establishment or any agent or employee of the owner or  operator detains, arrests, or causes to be detained or arrested any person reasonably thought to be engaged in shoplifting." The statute makes no reference to the detention of people for  reasons other than suspected shoplifting and being in derogation of common law, it must be  strictly construed.  o Here, Contrary to appellees' argument, the conduct suspected in this case is not  within the purview of OCGA § 16­8­14 (a), which defines shoplifting. Appellants  were not suspected of shoplifting but rather of passing counterfeit currency.  Accordingly, OCGA § 51­7­60 does not provide a ground for the entry of summary  judgment in favor of *157 Super Discount.  The evidence reflects without dispute that Devens did not instruct or urge Mumford to arrest  or detain appellants based upon her judgment that the bill was counterfeit.  Even assuming appellants are correct that there is some evidence Devens herself was  responsible for a detention of sufficient length to meet the requirements of a claim for false  imprisonment, no evidence exists that any such detention was in any way unlawful. Although Devens mistakenly suspected the bill was counterfeit, there is no dispute it was an honest  mistake on her part, and when she became suspicious, she immediately turned the matter over to the police.  The court states "While it is certainly true that the owner of a business has a duty to protect  its customers from injury caused by the tortious misconduct of its employees, the undisputed  evidence refutes the existence of such misconduct in this case." CONCLUSION  The trial court's judgment right for any reason was affirmed. Because any momentary  detention by Devens was not unlawful, an essential element of appellant's case was negated,  entitling Super Discount to summary judgment on that ground. ­ Judgment affirmed. 2


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

25 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Bentley McCaw University of Florida

"I was shooting for a perfect 4.0 GPA this semester. Having StudySoup as a study aid was critical to helping me achieve my goal...and I nailed it!"

Anthony Lee UC Santa Barbara

"I bought an awesome study guide, which helped me get an A in my Math 34B class this quarter!"

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."

Parker Thompson 500 Startups

"It's a great way for students to improve their educational experience and it seemed like a product that everybody wants, so all the people participating are winning."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.