Thomas J. Hard v. Burlington Northern Railroad

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the Ninth 16 Circuit has not joined other courts in holding that evidence acquired in post-verdict 17 interviews conducted without leave of the court makes the evidence obtained 18 inadmissible
• involving a juror who was allegedly a former employee of the defendant railroad, and who allegedly had per sonal knowledge of the railroad’s settlement practices
• “Statements which tend to show deceit during voir dire are not barred by [Rule 606(b)]”
• \[Juror] statements which tend to show deceit during voir dire are not barred by [Fed. Rule of Evid. 606(b)].\
• \[Juror] statements which tend to show deceit during voir dire are not barred by [Fed. Rule of Evid. 606(b)].\
• when juror's past personal \experiences are related to the litigation ... they constitute extraneous evidence which may be used to impeach the jury's verdict\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).