Andrade v. United Fruit Co.

Second Circuit

Andrade v. United Fruit Co.

312 F.2d 889

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJanuary 25, 1963

DocketNo. 228, Docket 27812

StatusPublished

This text of 312 F.2d 889 (Andrade v. United Fruit Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Andrade v. United Fruit Co., 312 F.2d 889 (2d Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm in open court Judge Fein-berg’s denial of plaintiff’s motion, F.R. Civ.Proc. 60(b), to set aside a verdict for defendant in a seaman’s action, on the ground that a juror allegedly failed to disclose a fact relating to his employment which made him incapable of being a disinterested juror. There was no reason why the juror should have supposed his employment so disqualified him; if plaintiff’s trial counsel desired further information concerning this, it was for him to obtain it on the voir dire.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We affirm in open court Judge Fein-berg’s denial of plaintiff’s motion, F.R. Civ.Proc. 60(b), to set aside a verdict for defendant in a seaman’s action, on the ground that a juror allegedly failed to disclose a fact relating to his employment which made him incapable of being a disinterested juror. There was no reason why the juror should have supposed his employment so disqualified him; if plaintiff’s trial counsel desired further information concerning this, it was for him to obtain it on the voir dire.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

312 F.2d 889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andrade-v-united-fruit-co-ca2-1963.