N.M. R. Civ. P. Dist. Ct. 1-038
N.M. R. Civ. P. Dist. Ct. 1-038
ANNOTATIONS The 2008 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order No. 08-8300-34, effective December 15, 2008, in Paragraph C, increased the jury fee for a jury of six persons from $100.00 to $150.00; increased the jury fee for a jury of twelve persons from $200.00 to $300.00; and increased the jury fee to be paid by each party if a party demands that the initial jury of six persons be increased to a jury of twelve persons from $100.00 to $150.00. The 2000 amendment, effective February 1, 2001, in Paragraph A, deleted "a jury by" following "triable of right by" and inserted "and filing the demand as required by Paragraph D of Rule 1-005 NMRA"; rewrote Paragraph D; and, in Paragraph H, substituted "Jury fees" for "In civil cases the fees of a". The 1999 amendment, effective August 27, 1999, in Paragraph C, substituted "a non-refundable jury fee" for "for and on account of jury fees the sum" in the first and second sentences and substituted "the attendance of the jury is required for the trial" for "the jury shall be engaged in trial of the same" in all three sentences; added Paragraph K; and made stylistic changes.
For trial by jury or court, see Rule 1-039 NMRA. For juries of less than 12, see Rule 1-048 NMRA. For waiver of trial by jury, see Rule 1-052 NMRA. For constitutional right to trial by jury, see N.M. Const., art. II, §12. For right to jury trial in the metropolitan court, see Section 34-8A-5 NMSA 1978. For jury and witness fee fund, see Section 34-9-11 NMSA 1978. Compiler's notes. - Paragraph B, which prior to amendment is deemed to have superseded Trial Court Rule 105-812, derived from 105-812, C.S. 1929, relating to notice of jury trial and placing of the cause upon the jury trial docket. Together with Rule 1-040 NMRA, Paragraph B of this rule is deemed to have superseded 105-814, C.S. 1929, relating to calling of the docket and waiver of jury trial. If and when the trial court reverses its ruling on a challenge of a juror for cause, the court should ask the party whose challenge was overruled if that party wishes to use a peremptory challenge retroactively. Benavidez v. City of Gallup, 2007-NMSC-026, 141 N.M. 808, 161 P.3d 853. Constitutionality. - Subdivision (d) (see now Paragraph D) does not contravene N.M. Const., art. II, §12, and is a reasonable procedural regulation. Carlile v. Continental Oil Co., 1970-NMCA-051, 81 N.M. 484, 468 P.2d 885. Rules not precluded by constitutional guaranty. - Constitutional guaranty of the right of trial by jury does not preclude the adoption of reasonable rules of court providing that a litigant shall not be entitled to a jury trial unless he makes demand within the time and in the manner specified. Carlile v. Continental Oil Co., 1970-NMCA-051, 81 N.M. 484, 468 P.2d 885. Right of jury trial provisional. - Right of jury trial on any issue of fact presented by the pleadings is provisional, and if the evidence fails to form such issue of fact, the right of jury trial disappears. Loucks v. Albuquerque Nat'l Bank, 1966-NMSC-176, 76 N.M. 735, 418 P.2d 191. Complaint of legal nature. - Where plaintiff's amended complaint was legal in nature, not equitable, and timely demand was made for the trial by jury, plaintiff was entitled to trial by jury as of right. Barber's Super Mkts., Inc. v. Stryker, 1972-NMCA-089, 84 N.M. 181, 500 P.2d 1304, cert. denied, 84 N.M. 180, 500 P.2d 1303. Suit to establish trust. - In a suit primarily to establish a trust and right to damages, plaintiff was not entitled to a jury trial as a matter of right. Drake v. Rueckhaus, 1961-NMSC-033, 68 N.M. 209, 360 P.2d 395. Right to jury trial in eminent domain proceedings determined by civil rules. - The right to trial by jury and the waiver thereof in eminent domain proceedings shall be determined in the manner provided for in ordinary civil cases, cases governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. El Paso Elec. v. Real Estate Mart, Inc., 1982-NMCA-101, 98 N.M. 490, 650 P.2d 12. Property interests of each condemnee constitute separate claim. - In an eminent domain proceeding, the property interests of one condemnee are a claim separate from another. Therefore, each party who waives trial by jury shall be tried by the court separately (or together, unless severance is ordered) and a demand for jury trial made by certain defendants does not act as a demand for other defendants. El Paso Elec. v. Real Estate Mart, Inc., 1982-NMCA-101, 98 N.M. 490, 650 P.2d 12. Each defendant seeking adverse interests must impose burden upon other. - To have "adverse, antagonistic or different interests" in a lawsuit, each defendant must seek to impose upon another a burden or responsibility which would relieve the other of liability in the case. Strickland v. Roosevelt County Rural Elec. Coop., 1980 -NMCA-012, 94 N.M. 459, 612 P.2d 689, cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1209, 103 S. Ct. 3540, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1390 (1983). One is entitled to demand jury trial of right when contesting a will. Thorp v. Cash, 1981-NMCA-074, 97 N.M. 383, 640 P.2d 489. Right to jury trial of legal issues in compulsory counterclaim. Evans Fin. Corp. v. Strasser, 1983-NMSC-053, 99 N.M. 788, 664 P.2d 986. Six-member jury unless specific demand for 12-member jury. - Unless specific demand is made for a jury of 12, the parties are considered to have agreed to a jury of six. In re Will of Ferrill, 1981-NMCA-074, 97 N.M. 383, 640 P.2d 489. Trial de novo on appeal. - On appeals from justice of the peace courts (now magistrate courts), district court is not bound by rules and procedure applicable thereto, and trial de novo in district court does not presuppose a jury trial if other considerations which would require it are absent. Reece v. Montano, 1943-NMSC-054, 48 N.M. 1, 144 P.2d 461. Amendment creating jury issues. - Under this rule, when a party amends his pleading so as to create jury issues, he is entitled to a jury trial upon timely demand, this rule also applies where a claim is completely changed from an equitable proceeding to one at law. Barber's Super Mkts., Inc. v. Stryker, 1972-NMCA-089, 84 N.M. 181, 500 P.2d 1304, cert. denied, 84 N.M. 180, 500 P.2d 1303. No waiver absent basis for choice. - In suit to quiet title to certain real estate, where originally defendants failed to plead possession and sought affirmative equitable relief, they had no basis for choice on whether to demand or waive a jury, and accordingly had not waived right to jury trial; their amended answer alleging possession and abandoning request for affirmative equitable relief placed these defendants for the first time in a position to demand a jury, so that their jury demand was timely made under Subdivision (d) of this rule (see now Paragraph D). Griego v. Roybal, 1968-NMSC-077, 79 N.M. 273, 442 P.2d 585. Failure to timely serve demand for jury. - Where, after trial court sustained motion to strike plaintiff's demand for jury trial for failure to timely serve same on defendants, a further motion was filed by plaintiff to set aside this order, to which motion was attached a copy of the jury docket listing the case, but there was no showing that defendant's counsel were present at the call of the jury docket or had notice of fact that the case was listed upon the docket until after time for service of demand had expired, trial court had broad discretion in determining whether to grant a jury trial under the facts and circumstances. Carlile v. Continental Oil Co., 1970-NMCA-051, 81 N.M. 484, 468 P.2d 885. Where there is proof that an answer was mailed on November 22, 1978, the fact that this answer was not received until November 27, 1978, does not aid the plaintiff's untimely demand for a jury trial because service is complete upon mailing; therefore, a jury demand, served on December 5, 1978, is not served within 10 days of service of the answer and is waived. Myers v. Kapnison, 1979-NMCA-085, 93 N.M. 215, 598 P.2d 1175. Where defendant failed to file a timely request for a jury trial pursuant to this rule, defendant's argument that their failure to exercise a demand for a jury trial results from the lack of clarity in plaintiff's complaint as to the nature of the action failed where the language of plaintiff's complaint was sufficient to fairly give notice to defendants that the action against them sounded in tort. Foster v. Luce, 1993-NMCA-035, 115 N.M. 331, 850 P.2d 1034. Time of jury element in probate proceeding. - In a probate proceeding, the jury demand may be filed not later than ten days after service of the objections, provided that such date is a reasonable amount of time prior to the date set for hearing and the district court does not find that the jury demand was filed solely for purposes of delay or other improper purpose. Estate of Lytton v. Lozoya, 2001-NMCA-030, 130 N.M. 258, 23 P.3d 933. Where no jury demand for strategic purposes, court may later deny new trial. - The denial of a motion for a new trial does not constitute an abuse of discretion where a demand for a jury trial was initially not filed at the time of the commencement of the action as a matter of trial strategy. El Paso Elec. v. Real Estate Mart, Inc., 1982-NMCA-101, 98 N.M. 490, 650 P.2d 12. Party abandons motion to strike jury demand by proceeding to trial by jury. - Where the movant fails to proceed to seek a determination of his motion to strike a jury demand, but proceeds to trial by jury, this conduct constitutes a waiver or abandonment of his motion, precluding its consideration in an appeal. In re Will of Ferrill, 1981-NMCA-074, 97 N.M. 383, 640 P.2d 489 (specially concurring opinion). Party does not always lose right to jury trial by failing to comply with demand procedures. Peay v. Ortega, 1984-NMSC-071, 101 N.M. 564, 686 P.2d 254. Burden on plaintiff to show abuse of discretion. - Trial court's ruling denying motion to set aside order for jury trial was presumed to be valid and the burden rested on plaintiff to show the manner in which court abused its discretion. Carlile v. Continental Oil Co., 1970-NMCA-051, 81 N.M. 484, 468 P.2d 885. Waiver of jury in quiet title suit. - Right to jury trial granted to one in possession of real estate in suit to deprive him of same, as guaranteed by N.M. Const., art. II, §12, can be waived by defendant in possession affirmatively seeking to quiet title in himself. Griego v. Roybal, 1968-NMSC-077, 79 N.M. 273, 442 P.2d 585. Jury waived. - Under 105-814, C.S. 1929 (now superseded), where defendant was in court when case was set for trial with consent of the parties and did not demand a jury, and afterwards the case was submitted on the date set for such trial, the defendant, then making no objection to the proceedings and not demanding a jury, was not in a position to complain that there was no submission to a jury. Porter v. Alamocitos Land & Livestock Co., 1925-NMSC-036, 32 N.M. 344, 256 P. 179. Waiver of jury trial by conduct. - Since the claimant was aware that the trial court intended to conduct a bench trial, but failed to inform the trial court that she wanted a jury trial, her conduct amply demonstrated that she intended to waive the right to a jury trial; therefore, the purpose of this rule was fulfilled. Hull v. Feinstein, 2003-NMCA-052, 133 N.M. 531, 65 P.3d 266, cert. denied, 133 N.M. 539, 65 P.3d 1094. Effect of amending pleading on previous waiver. - When a jury has been waived by failure to make timely demand, the right to a jury trial is not automatically revived by the filing of an amended pleading; party who amends his pleadings is entitled to a jury trial only as to new issues raised by the amended pleading. Griego v. Roybal, 1968-NMSC-077, 79 N.M. 273, 442 P.2d 585; Davis v. Severson, 1963-NMSC-021, 71 N.M. 480, 379 P.2d 774; Morrison v. Wyrsch, 1979-NMSC-093, 93 N.M. 556, 603 P.2d 295. Allowance of amendment of plaintiff's complaint did not imply that court thought new or different issues were raised thereby, or that right to jury trial previously waived was thereby revived. Davis v. Severson, 1963-NMSC-021, 71 N.M. 480, 379 P.2d 774. Discretion of trial court to grant jury trial after waiver. - The granting of motion for trial by jury was a matter within the discretion of the trial court, even though a jury had been waived pursuant to this rule. Alford v. Drum, 1961-NMSC-048, 68 N.M. 298, 361 P.2d 451. Affirmative waiver. - Under former version of rule, before a party could call upon his adversary to file an election as to whether he demanded a jury trial, he had to first affirmatively waive a jury by filing with the court clerk a written notice to that effect, and notice directing the other party to elect was not enough to inform him of that waiver. Pouliot v. Box, 1952-NMSC-075, 56 N.M. 566, 246 P.2d 1050. Equalization of peremptory challenges unauthorized. - Paragraph E does not authorize an equalization of peremptory challenges and does not violate the right to equal protection under the New Mexico or federal constitutions. Gallegos ex rel. Gallegos v. Southwest Cmty. Health Servs., 1994-NMCA-037, 117 N.M. 481, 872 P.2d 899. Peremptory challenges by multiple parties. - Where multiple plaintiffs employed the same attorneys, relief sought did not differ and nothing indicated that plaintiffs' interests were diverse, the trial court did not err in limiting the plaintiffs to five peremptory challenges. Trotter v. Callens, 1976-NMCA-013, 89 N.M. 19, 546 P.2d 867, cert. denied, 89 N.M. 207, 549 P.2d 285. Right to peremptory challenges in civil cases, something unknown to the common law, is not a right to select but to reject jurors, and, for its scope, the court had to look to former statute; thus, opposite parties, though plural, were required to join in exercise of their peremptory challenges. Morris v. Cartwright, 1953-NMSC-030, 57 N.M. 328, 258 P.2d 719. Defendants were held to have diverse interests, and therefore it was not error to award each one five peremptory challenges. Carraro v. Wells Fargo Mtg. & Equity, 1987-NMCA-122, 106 N.M. 442, 744 P.2d 915. If the interests of multiple parties on the same side of the lawsuit are diverse, the trial court shall allow each party on that side of the lawsuit five peremptory challenges. Because the decision necessarily must be made before the beginning of the trial, the trial court's decision is based on the pleadings in the case and the assertions of the parties. Gallegos ex rel. Gallegos v. Southwest Cmty. Health Servs., 1994-NMCA-037, 117 N.M. 481, 872 P.2d 899. A solitary plaintiff was not entitled to additional challenges even though the two defendants were awarded five challenges each. Carraro v. Wells Fargo Mtg. & Equity, 1987-NMCA-122, 106 N.M. 442, 744 P.2d 915. "Different relief" is not defined in the rule, but the legislature did not intend the phrase to mean simply different causes of action that seek different money damages. Rather, the phrase refers to situations where the relief requested by one party conflicts with the relief sought by another party. Apodaca v. AAA Gas Co., 2003-NMCA-085, 134 N.M. 77, 73 P.3d 215. Different plaintiffs that request money damages are not asking for "different relief." Apodaca v. AAA Gas Co., 2003-NMCA-085, 134 N.M. 77, 73 P.3d 215. "Different relief" means different forms of relief such as mandamus, money damages, prospective injunctions and declaratory judgment; the relief sought may also be "different" where one plaintiff seeks a form of injunctive relief that is contrary to the injunctive relief sought by another plaintiff. Apodaca v. AAA Gas Co., 2003-NMCA-085, 134 N.M. 77, 73 P.3d 215. Separate peremptory challenges given one of multiple defendants. - In medical malpractice action against three physicians, trial court properly granted defendant five separate peremptory challenges in addition to five joint challenges for other defendants where his interests were antagonistic to those of other defendants based on pleadings and effect of comparative negligence doctrine. Sewell v. Wilson, 1984-NMCA-022, 101 N.M. 486, 684 P.2d 1151. Granting additional jury challenges. - A trial court should consider the following factors in determining whether to grant additional jury challenges: (1) whether the parties employed the same attorneys, (2) whether separate answers were filed; (3) whether the parties' interests were antagonistic; and, (4) in a negligence claim, whether different independent acts of negligence are alleged in a suit governed by comparative negligence. Gallegos v. Citizens Ins. Agency, 1989-NMSC-055, 108 N.M. 722, 779 P.2d 99. The determination of whether to grant additional jury challenges rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Gallegos v. Citizens Ins. Agency, 1989-NMSC-055, 108 N.M. 722, 779 P.2d 99. Written answers to special interrogatories not modifiable by oral answers. - Written answers made by a jury to special interrogatories cannot be modified by oral answers of the jurors to questions by the court. Sanchez v. Martinez, 1982-NMCA-168, 99 N.M. 66, 653 P.2d 897. Verdict should express clear intent of jury to award damages. - The verdict should leave no question as to the clear intent of the jury to render an award of damages and as to the amount of damages. Casarez v. Garcia, 1983-NMCA-013, 99 N.M. 508, 660 P.2d 598. Final verdict takes effect upon discharge of jury. - The second sentence of subsection F reflects the general rule that there is no final verdict until the jury has been discharged. Hurst v. Citadel, Ltd., 1991-NMCA-006, 111 N.M. 566, 807 P.2d 750. Jury polling improper to determine damage award amount or to reveal factual determinations. - Polling of a jury is not proper to determine the amount of a damage award or for the purpose of revealing its determination of factual issues, since jury verdicts are required to be written. Sanchez v. Martinez, 1982-NMCA-168, 99 N.M. 66, 653 P.2d 897. There was no basis for taxing jury costs against plaintiff under this rule where no jury was selected to try the case. Read v. Western Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 1977 -NMCA-039, 90 N.M. 369, 563 P.2d 1162. Awarding jury costs to plaintiff held error. Carraro v. Wells Fargo Mtg. & Equity, 1987-NMCA-122, 106 N.M. 442, 744 P.2d 915. Refund of jury fees. - Under this rule, prior to amendment, a refund of jury fees was apparently prohibited except in the one situation set forth, as otherwise parties might merely make deposits for the purpose of gaining settlements or postponing trial of the case. 1943-44 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 4600. Setting case for trial. - Under 105-812, C.S. 1929 (now superseded), it was not reversible error to set the case for trial before the issues were made up, where it was not tried at the time or place fixed, but was actually tried at a later time and different place without objection. Owen v. Thompson, 1924-NMSC-024, 29 N.M. 517, 224 P. 405 (1924). Law reviews. - For article, "The `New Rules' in New Mexico," see 1 Nat. Resources J. 96 (1961). For survey, "Article VII of the New Probate Code: In pursuit of Uniform Trust Administration," see 6 N.M.L. Rev. 213 (1976). For note, "Undue Influence in Wills - Evidence - Testators' Position Changes After In re Will of Ferrill," see 13 N.M.L. Rev. 753 (1983). For article, "Separation of Powers and the Judicial Rule-Making Power in New Mexico: The Need for Prudential Restraints," see 15 N.M.L. Rev. 407 (1985). Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. - 9 Am. Jur. 2d Bankruptcy §§573 to 578; 22 Am. Jur. 2d Declaratory Judgments §230; 47 Am. Jur. 2d Jury §3 et seq. Statute requiring claims for carriers' refund of overcharges to be submitted to public service commission as infringement of right to jury trial, 3 A.L.R. 203. Right to jury trial in proceeding for removal of public officer, 3 A.L.R. 232, 8 A.L.R. 1476. Statute providing for revocation of license of physician, surgeon or dentist as denial of right to trial by jury, 5 A.L.R. 94, 79 A.L.R. 323. Statute conferring on chancery courts power to abate public nuisances as invasion of constitutional guaranty of jury trial, 5 A.L.R. 1480, 22 A.L.R. 542, 75 A.L.R. 1298. Request by both parties for directed verdict as waiver of submission to jury, 18 A.L.R. 1433, 68 A.L.R.2d 300. Statute requiring appellate review of evidence, 19 A.L.R. 746, 24 A.L.R. 1267, 33 A.L.R. 10. Attorney's right to jury trial where he is charged with failure to turn over money or property to client, 22 A.L.R. 1501. Statutes giving right to jury trial in contempt proceedings for violating injunction in industrial disputes, 27 A.L.R. 423, 35 A.L.R. 460, 97 A.L.R. 1333, 106 A.L.R. 361, 120 A.L.R. 316, 124 A.L.R. 751, 127 A.L.R. 868. Statute providing for injunctions against nuisance arising from violation of liquor law as denying right of trial by jury, 49 A.L.R. 642. Reduction or increase of verdict by court without giving party affected option to submit to new trial, 53 A.L.R. 779, 95 A.L.R. 1163. Will contest, 62 A.L.R. 82. Statute providing for consolidation or merger of public utility corporations as invasion of right to jury trial, 66 A.L.R. 1568. Statute or rule of court providing for summary judgment in absence of affidavit of merits as infringement of right to jury trial, 69 A.L.R. 1031, 120 A.L.R. 1400. Equity jurisdiction to cancel insurance policy, upon ground within incontestable clause prior to termination of period, as depriving beneficiary of right to jury trial, 73 A.L.R. 1533, 111 A.L.R. 1275. Constitutionality, construction and effect of statute providing for jury trial in disbarment proceedings, 78 A.L.R. 1323. Statute in relation to subject matter or form of instructions by court as impairing constitutional right to jury trial, 80 A.L.R. 906. Injunction against unlicensed practice of profession, or conduct of business without license, 81 A.L.R. 297, 92 A.L.R. 173. Declaratory judgment action as infringement of right to jury trial, 87 A.L.R. 1209. Statute prohibiting new trial on ground of inadequacy of damages, 88 A.L.R. 954. Deprivation of jury trial as objection to injunction to prevent unlicensed practice of law, 94 A.L.R. 364. Suit in equity against several insurers issuing fire insurance policies covering same risk as infringement of right to jury trial, 98 A.L.R. 181. Right to jury trial in original quo warranto proceedings in appellate court, 98 A.L.R. 237. Waiver of right to jury trial as operative after expiration of term during which it was made or as regards subsequent trial, 106 A.L.R. 203. Statute providing for supplementary proceedings as an infringement of right to jury trial, 106 A.L.R. 383. Validity and effect of plan or practice of consulting preferences of persons eligible for jury service as regards periods or times of service or character of actions, 112 A.L.R. 995. Right to jury trial of issues as to personal judgment for deficiency in suit for foreclosure of mortgage, 112 A.L.R. 1492. Right to jury trial in suit to remove cloud, quiet title or determine adverse claims, 117 A.L.R. 9 Nature and effect of jury's verdict in equity, 156 A.L.R. 1147. Eligibility of women as jurors, 157 A.L.R. 461. Constitutional validity of statute providing for in rem or summary foreclosure of delinquent tax liens on real property, 160 A.L.R. 1026. Right to jury trial in action concerning failure of purchaser to remove timber within time fixed by timber contract, 164 A.L.R. 461. Right to jury trial as to fact essential to action or defense but not involving merits thereof, 170 A.L.R. 383. Jury trial in action for declaratory relief, 13 A.L.R.2d 777, 33 A.L.R.4th 146. Statutes relating to sexual psychopaths, 24 A.L.R.2d 350. Constitutional right to jury trial in proceeding for adjudication of incompetency or insanity, 33 A.L.R.2d 1145. Mandamus or prohibition or remedy to enforce right to jury trial, 41 A.L.R.2d 780. Arbitration statute as denial of jury trial, 55 A.L.R.2d 432. Withdrawal or disregard of waiver of jury trial in civil action, 64 A.L.R.2d 506, 9 A.L.R.4th 1041. Request by each party for directed verdict as waiving submission of fact questions to jury, 68 A.L.R.2d 300. Indoctrination by court of persons summoned for jury service, 89 A.L.R.2d 197. Rule or statute requiring opposing party's consent to withdrawal of demand for jury trial, 90 A.L.R.2d 1162. Sufficiency of waiver of full jury, 93 A.L.R.2d 410. Constitutionality of statutes providing for custody or commitment of incorrigible children without jury trial, 100 A.L.R.2d 1241. How to obtain jury trial in eminent domain, waiver, 12 A.L.R.3d 7. Right to jury trial in summary proceedings for destruction of gambling devices, 14 A.L.R.3d 366. Right in equity suit to jury trial of counterclaim involving legal issue, 17 A.L.R.3d 1321. Issues in garnishment as triable to court or to jury, 19 A.L.R.3d 1393. Constitutionality of statute imposing liability upon estate or relatives of insane person for his support in asylum, 20 A.L.R.3d 363. Statute creating municipal liability for mob or riot as violating right to trial by jury, 26 A.L.R.3d 1142. Number of peremptory challenges allowable in civil cases where there are more than two parties involved, 32 A.L.R.3d 747. Automobile guests statutes as infringement of right to trial by jury, 66 A.L.R.3d 532. Authority of state court to order jury trial in civil case where jury has been waived or not demanded by parties, 9 A.L.R.4th 1041. Jury trial waiver as binding on later state civil trial, 48 A.L.R.4th 747. Paternity proceedings: right to jury trial, 51 A.L.R.4th 565. Right to jury trial in action for retaliatory discharge from employment, 52 A.L.R.4th 1141. Effect of juror's false or erroneous answer on voir dire regarding previous claims or actions against himself or his family, 66 A.L.R.4th 509. Validity of law or rule requiring state court party who requests jury trial in civil case to pay costs associated with jury, 68 A.L.R.4th 343. Prospective juror's connection with insurance company as ground for challenge for cause, 9 A.L.R.5th 102. Contractual jury trial waivers in state civil cases, 42 A.L.R.5th 53. Distribution and exercise of peremptory challenges in federal civil cases under 28 USCS §1870, 50 A.L.R. Fed. 350. Sufficiency of demand for jury trial under Rule 38(b) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 73 A.L.R. Fed. 698. 50 C.J.S. Juries §§ 8, 10, 12, 14, 17, 28, to 30, 178, 182.