TO: Bernie Franks, Director of Paralegals

FROM:

RE: Citation Practice and Case Brief for Lester v. Albers Super Markets, Inc.

DATE:

Part I. Citation Practice

A) Lester v. Albers Supermarket, Inc., (1952) 94 Ohio App. 313

B) Lester v. Albers Super Market Inc. - This is the actual case title (plaintiff v. defendant)
1952- This is the year in which the case was filed.
94- This is the volume number.
Ohio App. - It represents the court in which the case was heard, The Ohio Appellate
Court.
313- Refers to the Appellate court case number.

Part II.

Case Brief for Lester v. Albers Super Markets, Inc.

Case citation Lester v. Albers Supermarket, Inc., (1952) 94 Ohio App. 313
Procedural facts-The plaintiff filed a complaint about false imprisonment in the Court of
Common Pleas of Ohio (101 N.E.2d 731, 1951). The judgment rendered was in favor of the
plaintiff. The defendant then filed an appeal with the Ohio Court of Appeals in which the
court reversed the verdict of the Court of Common Pleas of Ohio.
Substantive facts-The Court of Common Pleas ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Mabel Lester,
in her complaint against the defendant for detaining her against her will. During the said case,
it was discussed that only a police officer can arrest for a misdemeanor, but any citizen can
arrest if they believe a felony was committed.
The plaintiff was a regular customer of Albers Supermarket. On this particular day in
question, she rode a bus or streetcar and obtained a transfer. She entered the store on this day
with a bag of goods purchased at another store and picked up a can of fruit cocktail. While
waiting in line she noticed her bus was coming and placed the item on a counter, then
attempted to run out to catch her bus. This is when the manager approached her and informed
her that the bag would have to be searched. Plaintiff was not physically touched or threatened
to be arrested (6 C.J.S) and handed her bag over willingly for the search. Witnesses stated that
the incident did not last more than five minutes.
Issue- Did the manager of Albers Supermarket detain the plaintiff for an unreasonable
amount of time that would constitute false imprisonment?
Rule- The court ruled by saying that false imprisonment may not be predicated on a person's
unfounded belief that he was restrained.
Holding- The Court of Appeals reversed the verdict of the Court of Common Pleas and
Ruled in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff could not prove that she was held against her
Will or that she was detained for an unreasonable amount of time.
Rationale-The Court of Common Pleas failed to quantify the meaning of false imprisonment.
Which was the whole point of the case. The Court of Appeals, in dissecting this pertinent
point, realized that this was not a case of false imprisonment. The Courts must uphold the law
of the land and reversed the decision because of all the rules referenced.