Sierra Foods v. Williams

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the trial court had “jurisdiction to reconvene and re-empanel the jury” after the jury had been dismissed because “the jury had not left the courthouse and remained under the de facto control of the court”
• recognizing the general rule that a trial judge may not reconvene a jury once it has been dismissed, but since the jury had not left the courthouse it was under the defacto control of the court
• upholding recall of jury to correct a damages award that failed to account for its contributory negligence finding
• \[T]he general rule SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA I 43- yip/ (01 1947A in many jurisdictions is that a trial court is without authority or jurisdiction to reconvene a jury once it has been dismissed . . . .\
• \[T]he general rule SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA I 43- yip/ (01 1947A in many jurisdictions is that a trial court is without authority or jurisdiction to reconvene a jury once it has been dismissed . . . .\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).