Clark v. Lucky Foods

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Clark v. Lucky Foods

472 S.W.2d 251

DecidedOctober 22, 1971

StatusPublished

This text of 472 S.W.2d 251 (Clark v. Lucky Foods) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clark v. Lucky Foods, 472 S.W.2d 251 (Ky. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

EDWARD P. HILL, Jr., Judge.

A jury returned a verdict against the appellant, Marion L. Clark, the driver of one of the vehicles involved in an accident, and Lucky Foods, the owner, and Otis J. Davidson, the operator of the other vehicle involved, appellees herein.

By this appeal, the appellant presents only one question. He says that he was denied three peremptory challenges given him by KRS 29.290. The appellant has provided this court with only a partial record. According to that record, his first objection to the selection of the jury and to his claimed right to three peremptory challenges is contained in his motion and grounds for a new trial. This objection came too late. Tucker v. Kilgore, Ky., 388 S.W.2d 112 (1965).

The judgment is affirmed.

MILLIKEN, C. J., and NEIKIRK, OSBORNE, PALMORE, and REED, JJ., concur. STEINFELD, J., not sitting.

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

EDWARD P. HILL, Jr., Judge.

A jury returned a verdict against the appellant, Marion L. Clark, the driver of one of the vehicles involved in an accident, and Lucky Foods, the owner, and Otis J. Davidson, the operator of the other vehicle involved, appellees herein.

By this appeal, the appellant presents only one question. He says that he was denied three peremptory challenges given him by KRS 29.290. The appellant has provided this court with only a partial record. According to that record, his first objection to the selection of the jury and to his claimed right to three peremptory challenges is contained in his motion and grounds for a new trial. This objection came too late. Tucker v. Kilgore, Ky., 388 S.W.2d 112 (1965).

The judgment is affirmed.

MILLIKEN, C. J., and NEIKIRK, OSBORNE, PALMORE, and REED, JJ., concur. STEINFELD, J., not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

472 S.W.2d 251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-lucky-foods-kyctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack