Legal Opinion

Machamer v. Warner

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided January 31, 1929No. 113PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHughes, J.

If it be conceded that a relationship between a juror and plaintiff was at the time known to' such. juror and that she knowingly concealed the fact upon her voire dire examination, there would be little room to doubt the right of the defendants to have a new trial, because under such circumstances it would show a wilful endeavor upon the part of the juror, (using, the words of one of the distinguished jurists of our Supreme Court), to worm herself in on the jury when a probable partiality for the plaintiff existed.

The evidence on the motion for new trial shows that there was an organization…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Kerr v. B F Goodrich Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1936
  2. Dayton v. PerryOhio Court of Appeals · 1942

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API