From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Anderson v. Todd Shipyard Corporation

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Oct 31, 1945
63 F. Supp. 229 (S.D.N.Y. 1945)

Opinion

October 31, 1945.

Ralph H. Miller, of Brooklyn, N.Y. (Jacob Rassner, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Caverly, Dimond, Barton Dwyer, of New York City (Andrew M. Lawler, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant.


The plaintiff challenged for cause any prospective jurors who are interested by way of employment or otherwise with any insurance company. A juror employed by the insurance company which covered the defendant in the accident in suit would be disqualified from serving as a juror. An examination of the jurors disclosed that one of them is connected with an insurance company which insures against liability for accidents. That does not disqualify him as a juror in an accident case not covered by his employer. The juror was examined by the Court; he stated that he had no prejudice or bias and that he would be a fair and impartial juror; that he had no preconceived opinion as to who was entitled to recover; that he did not know the parties or their attorneys. Certainly the examination of this juror would not indicate any just cause for challenge.

Challenge for cause is properly overruled.


Summaries of

Anderson v. Todd Shipyard Corporation

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Oct 31, 1945
63 F. Supp. 229 (S.D.N.Y. 1945)
Case details for

Anderson v. Todd Shipyard Corporation

Case Details

Full title:ANDERSON v. TODD SHIPYARD CORPORATION

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Oct 31, 1945

Citations

63 F. Supp. 229 (S.D.N.Y. 1945)

Citing Cases

Schine Theatres v. United States

Pp. 129-130. 8. The provisions of the decree providing for the dissolution of the pooling agreements, the…

Webster Rosewood Corp. v. Schine Chain Theatres

Of course, the Schine decision is the important one in this controversy. Schine Chain Theatres, Inc., v.…