Legal Opinion

Polak v. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N. V. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines Holland

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided April 16, 1956PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PALMIERI, District Judge.

This motion is addressed to the Court’s discretion. The plaintiff seeks relief under Rule 39(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C. A., from the consequences of failure to make timely demand for a jury. See F. R.Civ.P. 38(b). Plaintiff urges that the waiver was an excusable oversight by prior counsel, for which he was not responsible. Mere inadvertence of counsel, however, is not sufficient grounds for the relief sought. See Steiger v. Mullaney, D. C.S.D.N.Y.1948, 8 F.R.D. 486; Bander v. Breslauer, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1947, 7 F.R.D. 480. The requirement of the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. McKnight v. Mutual Broadcasting System, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1953
  2. Steiger v. MullaneyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1948
  3. Scrinko v. Reading Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1954

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Mason v. British Overseas Airways Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1957
  2. Popkin v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1962
  3. Cataldo v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1966
  4. Ligouri v. New York, New Haven & Hartford RailroadDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1961
  5. Leve v. General Motors Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1965

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API