Legal Opinion
Peterson v. Southern Pac. Co.
District Court, S.D. California
Decided January 22, 1940No. 34PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
NETERER, District Judge.
The issue is the right of the plaintiff to demand a jury trial, demand not having been made as provided in Rule 38, U.S. • Rule of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.
It appears from the files that the attorney for the plaintiff within the time provided by rule did direct his law clerk to serve and file a demand for trial by jury; and that it was not ascertained by plaintiff’s attorney until the case was assigned for trial that the demand had not been made.
Rule 39(b), U.S.R. of C.P., provides: “ * * * notwithstanding the failure of a party to demand a…
2Cited by8 opinions
- William Goldman Theatres, Inc. v. KirkpatrickCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1946
- Carolyn Schnurer, Inc. v. SteinSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1959
- Ligouri v. New York, New Haven & Hartford RailroadDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1961
- Delaware ex rel. General Crushed Stone Co. v. Massachusetts Bonding & InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1942
- Bowles v. SamonasDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1946
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.