Legal Opinion

Iverson v. Pacific American Fisheries

Washington Supreme Court

Decided June 6, 1968No. 40079PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHill, J.

This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial, after a verdict for the defendant (11 to 1) in a personal injury action.

The trial court was convinced that an instruction given the deadlocked jury coerced two jurors into a defense verdict.

The circumstances leading to that conclusion were: That at about 10 p.m., after 8 hours of deliberation, the jury sent a note 1 to the court advising that they were deadlocked— standing 9 to 3 for the defendant; the Washington Pattern Jury Instruction (WPI 1.05) 2 intended for such circum stances, was then read to the jury; 10 minutes after returning to…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. State v. PeirceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1916
  2. O'BRIEN v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1958
  3. In Re SternSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1953
  4. Mead v. City of Richland CenterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1941
  5. Middle States Utilities Co. v. Incorporated Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1937

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Hue v. Farmboy Spray Co., Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Rueth v. StateIdaho Supreme Court · 1978
  3. State v. BoogaardWashington Supreme Court · 1978
  4. State v. WatkinsWashington Supreme Court · 1983
  5. State v. McCullumCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1981

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