TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Peterson v. Southern Pac. Co.

Peterson v. Southern Pac. Co., 31 F. Supp. 29 (S.D. Cal. 1940)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, S.D. California · Federal District Courts
Decided
January 22, 1940
Docket
No. 34
Judges
Neterer
Citations
31 F. Supp. 291940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3534

Opinion of the Court — Neterer

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

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 jury in an action in which such a demand might have been made of right, the court in its discretion upon motion may order a trial by a jury of any or all issues.”

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages for personal injuries claimed to have been sustained by reason of the negligent operation of the defendant’s railway train upon which she was a passenger for hire. The amount of damages, if any, is the principal if not, the sole issue, and the Court in the exercise of sound discretion I think should grant this motion and submit the issue for determination to a jury. While Sec. 38(b), F.R.C.P., provides that a demand for a trial by jury must be filed not later than 10 days after the service of the last pleading. It appears from the affidavit of the plaintiff’s attorney that he did not intend to waive a jury trial; and that the defendant cannot be prejudiced in any sense by the demand at this time.

The demand for jury trial is granted.

How later courts describe this case

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

1940: 11942: 11946: 21955: 11959: 11961: 12007: 119402026peak 1946 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. William Goldman Theatres, Inc. v. Kirkpatrick154 F.2d 66 (3d Cir. 1946)
  2. Carolyn Schnurer, Inc. v. Stein150 A.2d 490 (N.J. 1959)
  3. Ligouri v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad26 F.R.D. 565 (D. Conn. 1961)
  4. Delaware ex rel. General Crushed Stone Co. v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance3 F.R.D. 65 (D. Del. 1942)
  5. Bowles v. Samonas7 F.R.D. 104 (W.D. Pa. 1946)
  6. Wave House Belmont Park, LLC v. Travelers Property Casualty Co.244 F.R.D. 608 (S.D. Cal. 2007)

Most recent

  1. Wave House Belmont Park, LLC v. Travelers Property Casualty Co.244 F.R.D. 608 (S.D. Cal. 2007)
  2. Ligouri v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad26 F.R.D. 565 (D. Conn. 1961)
  3. Carolyn Schnurer, Inc. v. Stein150 A.2d 490 (N.J. 1959)
  4. Supplies, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.18 F.R.D. 226 (W.D. Pa. 1955)
  5. William Goldman Theatres, Inc. v. Kirkpatrick154 F.2d 66 (3d Cir. 1946)
  6. Bowles v. Samonas7 F.R.D. 104 (W.D. Pa. 1946)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list