Glen Gafford v. Star Fish & Oyster Company

Glen GAFFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STAR FISH & OYSTER COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee

Gafford v. Star Fish & Oyster Co., 475 F.2d 767 (5th Cir. 1973)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided: March 22, 1973
Docket: No. 72-3638
Judges: Brown, Dyer, Simpson
Citations: 475 F.2d 7671973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10952

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff challenges the manner in which trial court required him to exercise his peremptory challenges in this civil suit. The crux of his argument is that he was forced to exercise his challenges first, and that the Defendant was allowed to exercise his challenges thereafter with full knowledge of the Plaintiff’s choices.

The manner in which peremptory challenges are to be exercised is committed to the sound discretion of the trial Judge. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1870 . See Nehring v. Empresa Lineas Maritimas Argentinas, 5 Cir., 1968, 401 F.2d 767 ; Carey v. Lykes Brothers Steamship Company, Inc., 5 Cir., 1972, 455 F.2d 1192 ; Moore v. South African *768 Marine Corporation, Ltd., 5 Cir., 1972, 469 F.2d 280 .

Cf.

United States v. Franklin, 5 Cir., [1973], 471 F.2d 1299 ; United States v. Williams, 5 Cir., 1971, 447 F.2d 894, 896-897 ; United States v. Sams, 5 Cir., 1972, 470 F.2d 751 [1972]. Upon an examination of the record in this case we find that it does not support a conclusion that the trial court’s practice was an abuse of that discretion or resulted in any harm. We would think it better practice to require a simultaneous or alternating exercise of peremptory challenges, but we cannot say that the practice here resulted in any substantial prejudice. Of course United States v. Sams reflects that there are situations in which the procedure is wrong and merits reversal. This is not one of those situations.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 9 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

In re Air Crash Disaster.86 F.3d 498 (6th Cir. 1996)
United States v. Fred M. Mosely810 F.2d 93 (6th Cir. 1987)
Joanne Kotler, Individually and as Administratrix, Etc. v. The American Tobacco Company926 F.2d 1217 (1st Cir. 1990)
Thaddeus Donald Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, Inc.895 F.2d 218 (5th Cir. 1990)
United States v. Joseph Bryant, John Cagnina, Terry Lee Alvarez671 F.2d 450 (11th Cir. 1982)
Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Gellert438 So. 2d 923 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

Most recent

Anita Young McCray v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company579 F. App'x 912 (11th Cir. 2014)
In re Air Crash Disaster.86 F.3d 498 (6th Cir. 1996)
Polec v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.86 F.3d 498 (6th Cir. 1996)
Joanne Kotler, Individually and as Administratrix, Etc. v. The American Tobacco Company926 F.2d 1217 (1st Cir. 1990)
Thaddeus Donald Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, Inc.895 F.2d 218 (5th Cir. 1990)
United States v. Fred M. Mosely810 F.2d 93 (6th Cir. 1987)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

Depth	Case	Cited by
	United States v. Williams, 447 F.2d 894 (5th Cir. 1971)	43
	United States v. Sams, 470 F.2d 751 (5th Cir. 1972)	22
	United States v. Franklin, 471 F.2d 1299 (5th Cir. 1973)	17
	Nehring v. Empresa Lineas Maritimas Argentinas, 401 F.2d 767 (5th Cir. 1968)	14
	Hurklee Carey v. Lykes Bros. S.S. Co., Inc. -Cross v. Ryan Stevedoring Co., Inc. -Cross, 455 F.2d 1192 (3d Cir. 1972)	6

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list