On the trial of any civil action to a jury, each party may challenge peremptorily three jurors. Where the court determines a unity of interest exists, several plaintiffs or several defendants may be considered as a single party for the purpose of making challenges, or the court may allow additional peremptory challenges and permit them to be exercised separately or jointly. For the purposes of this section, a “unity of interest” means that the interests of the several plaintiffs or of the several defendants are substantially similar. A unity of interest shall be found to exist among parties who are represented by the same attorney or law firm. In addition, there shall be a presumption that a unity of interest exists among parties where no cross claims or apportionment complaints have been filed against one another. In all civil actions, the total number of peremptory challenges allowed to the plaintiff or plaintiffs shall not exceed twice the number of peremptory challenges allowed to the defendant or defendants, and the total number of peremptory challenges allowed to the defendant or defendants shall not exceed twice the number of peremptory challenges allowed to the plaintiff or plaintiffs.
(1949 Rev., S. 7926; 1953, S. 3175d; 1959, P.A. 28, S. 100; 1971, P.A. 40, S. 2; P.A. 93-176, S. 1; P.A. 01-152, S. 1.)
History: 1959 act deleted reference to action before justice of the peace; 1971 act allowed three challenges without exception where previously three challenges were allowed in trials with six-person juries and four challenges in trials with twelve-person juries, effective April 12, 1971, and applicable to all civil actions claimed for jury trial on and after that date; P.A. 93-176 added provision re peremptory challenges when the court determines a unity of interest exists and defined “unity of interest”; P.A. 01-152 added provisions that a unity of interest shall be found to exist among parties represented by the same attorney or law firm, that there shall be a presumption that a unity of interest exists among parties where no cross complaints or apportionment complaints have been filed and that the total number of peremptory challenges allowed to one side shall not exceed twice the number allowed to the other side.
This includes actions of forcible entry and detainer and summary process. 20 C. 510. And applications to reassess damages. 28 C. 566. Where there are several plaintiffs or defendants, each is entitled to four peremptory challenges. 128 C. 67. Not erroneous for clerk to refuse party's list containing more than four names of jurors as challenged. 132 C. 87. Employer who paid workmen's compensation, intervening in action by employee against third person, is entitled to four challenges. 133 C. 446. Cited. 134 C. 101. After a juror is accepted, a party has no right to a peremptory challenge. Id., 530. If each party has an independent cause of action, the fact that the causes are combined in one complaint does not destroy the separate identities of the parties and each is entitled to the full number of challenges. 147 C. 333. Party has no right to peremptory challenge after accepting juror on conclusion of examination. 148 C. 596. Cited. 186 C. 632. Trial court has discretion to determine whether any unity of interest will trigger a limit on the number of peremptory challenges to be granted. 250 C. 443. Single party has no legal entitlement to multiple sets of challenges when distinct causes of action have been consolidated; the granting of more challenges than provided by law is subject to review for abuse of discretion; in conducting appellate review, court must consider whether granting the challenges harmed either party or was inconsistent with an efficient and orderly judicial process. 266 C. 244.
Cited. 42 CA 542. No unity of interest where a jury might determine each party was negligent in separate and distinct manner and their interests were therefore antagonistic. 50 CA 539. Trial court improperly limited number of peremptory challenges on the ground that defendants had a unity of interest. 55 CA 460. Is within court's discretion whether to give each party bound by a unity of interest with another party individual peremptory challenges. 65 CA 738. Section does not allow court to grant additional peremptory challenges to only one side in a civil case. 84 CA 656.
Cited. 41 CS 48.
Notes of Decisions
Beach v. Reg'l Sch. Dist. No. 13, 682 A.2d 118 (Conn. App. Ct. 1996).
· cites it 19× “The plaintiff claims that (1) the trial court improperly determined that no unity of interest, as defined in General Statutes § 51-241, existed among the individual defendants and, (2) there was insufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that the special defense of…”
Marshall v. Hartford Hosp., 783 A.2d 1085 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001).
· cites it 13× “) § 5577, the forerunner of General Statutes § 51-241, mean every plaintiff and every defendant is entitled to his, her or its own peremptory challenges.”
Kalams v. Giacchetto, 842 A.2d 1100 (Conn. 2004).
· cites it 7× “” General Statutes § 51-243 (a) provides in relevant part that “[i]n any case when the court directs the selection of alternate jurors, each party may peremptorily challenge four jurors.”
Walsh v. Town of Stonington Water Pollution Control Auth., 736 A.2d 811 (Conn. 1999).
· cites it 11× “t; (3) failed to dismiss the action even though the defendants are immune from common-law nuisance actions when they engage in conduct mandated by law and approved by permit; and (4) granted each of the four plaintiffs a set of peremptory challenges despite the fact that, as…”
Carrano v. Yale-New Haven Hosp., 904 A.2d 149 (Conn. 2006).
· cites it 6× “to 2001)] §§ 51-241 and 51-243(a)." Id. The Appellate Court further concluded that the improper award had harmed the defendants because "the plaintiff's receipt of twelve more challenges than that to which she was entitled (of which she used seven) fundamentally altered the…”
Batick v. Seymour, 443 A.2d 471 (Conn. 1982).
· cites it 2× “6 General Statutes § 51-241 provides as follows: “On the trial of any civil action to a jury, each party may challenge peremptorily three jurors.”
State v. Rigual, 771 A.2d 939 (Conn. 2001).
· cites it 4× “General Statutes § 51-241 provides: “On the trial of any civil action to a jury, each party may challenge peremptorily three jurors. Where the court determines a unity of interest exists, several plaintiffs or several defendants may be considered as a single party for the…”
Glass v. Peter Mitchell Constr. Leasing & Dev. Corp., 718 A.2d 79 (Conn. App. Ct. 1998).
· cites it 5× “General Statutes § 51-241. 2 The defendants *542 argued that their individual interests were sufficiently dissimilar to warrant separate peremptory challenges.”
Carrano v. Yale-New Haven Hosp., 854 A.2d 771 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004).
· cites it 7× “to 2001) §§ 51-241 and 51-243 (a). We agree. Prior to juiy selection, on April 24, 2001, the court increased, sua sponte, the number of the plaintiffs peremptory challenges from eight to twenty to equalize her number of challenges with that of the defendants.”
Rivera v. Saint Francis Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 738 A.2d 1151 (Conn. App. Ct. 1999).
· cites it 5× “1 The defendants’ principal claim is that the court, relying on General Statutes § 51-241, 2 improperly limited the defendants to a total of four peremptory challenges on the ground that they had a unity of interest.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.