28 U.S.C. § 1870
Challenges
In civil cases, each party shall be entitled to three peremptory challenges. Several defendants or several plaintiffs may be considered as a single party for the purposes of making challenges, or the court may allow additional peremptory challenges and permit them to be exercised separately or jointly.
All challenges for cause or favor, whether to the array or panel or to individual jurors, shall be determined by the court.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 107
cases (21 in the last 5 years), 1951–2025 · leading case: Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614 (1991).
Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614 (1991). “" 28 U. S. C. § 1870 . Without this authorization, granted by an Act of Congress itself, Leesville would not have been able to engage in the alleged discriminatory acts.”
Gretchen Getter v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 66 F.3d 1119 (10th Cir. 1995). “See 28 U.S.C. § 1870 . Thus, applying Ross , plaintiffs right to due process was not violated.”
Wardell v. McMillan, 844 P.2d 1052 (Wyo. 1992). “§ 1-11-202 (1988) has been superseded in result by adoption of the identical language obtained from federal law provided in 28 U.S.C.S. § 1870 (Law.Co-op.1989), applicable to civil cases: *1077 Peremptory challenges.”
Rodriguez v. Riddell Sports, Inc., 242 F.3d 567 (5th Cir. 2001). “Title 28 U.S.C. § 1870 allows a court complete discretion in apportioning additional peremptory challenges on the basis of multiple parties on either or both sides of a suit.”
Alaska Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Avis Budget Grp., Inc., 738 F.3d 960 (9th Cir. 2013). “The right to peremptory challenges in civil cases exists by virtue of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 47(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1870 , three challenges per party or side, not by virtue of the Constitution.”
Martha Dunham & Preston Dunham v. Frank's Nursery & Crafts, Inc., 919 F.2d 1281 (7th Cir. 1990). “Specifically, 28 U.S.C. § 1870 provides that each party in a civil case shall be entitled to three peremptory challenges.”
Bennie G. Carr v. Charles Watts, 597 F.2d 830 (2d Cir. 1979). “The sole contention on appeal is that the method employed by the District Court for selection of the jury impermissibly impaired plaintiff’s statutory right under 28 U.S.C. § 1870 to the exercise of three peremptory challenges.”
Carl Blount v. Jugoslavenska Linijska Plovidba, 567 F.2d 583 (3d Cir. 1977). “Title 28 U.S.C. § 1870 reads: In civil cases, each party shall be entitled to three peremptory challenges.”
Morgan v. Commonwealth, 189 S.W.3d 99 (Ky. 2006). “Note that each successive change decreased the peremptory challenges of the accused vis-à-vis those of the prosecution and/or increased the peremptory challenges of the prosecution vis-à-vis those of the accused.”
Jeffrey C. Rahn v. Vickie Hawkins Craig Jansen Gerald Fitzgerald, 464 F.3d 813 (8th Cir. 2006). “Both parties agree that the district court clearly erred in doing so, since Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 47(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1870 provide each party to a civil suit with three peremptory challenges.”
Jimenez v. City of Chicago, 732 F.3d 710 (7th Cir. 2013). “In federal civil cases, peremptory challenges are provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1870 , which provides each side in a civil case three peremptory challenges.”
Doralee Estates, Inc. v. Cities Serv. Oil Co., & Third-Party v. Mgo Corp. & Monticello Gas & Oil Co., Inc., Third-Party, 569 F.2d 716 (2d Cir. 1977). “The trial judge was well within his discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1870 11 to allot Cities and MGO one peremptory challenge each to be exercised individually and three peremptory challenges to be exercised jointly, since the third-party defendant was in the same position as the…”
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.