Right to Jury Trial in Washington—Present and Future
Trautman, Philip A.
Citation analytics
How this journal article sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this journal article
Most recently cited by8
- 1998Auburn Mechanical, Inc. v. Lydig Construction, Inc. Wash. Ct. App.
- 1989Sofie v. Fibreboard Corp. Wash.
- 1985Spring v. Department of Labor & Industries Wash. Ct. App.
- 1983Allard v. Pacific National Bank Wash.
- 1981S.P.C.S., Inc. v. Lockheed Shipbuilding & Construction Co. Wash. Ct. App.
- 1980Knudsen v. Patton Wash. Ct. App.
- 1975Lines v. Yakima School District No. 7. Wash. Ct. App.
- 1970Scavenius v. Manchester Port District Wash. Ct. App.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Abstract
A perennial problem confronting the attorney preparing for trial is whether his client has a right to a jury. In many, probably most, instances a trial to the court will be desired by all parties concerned. This may be because of the fear of prejudice on the part of a jury, or the desire for a more speedy trial before the judge, or the object of cutting expenses, or any of the other innumerable factors to be weighed in determining whether judge or jury is best for one's particular case. In other instances the sole question at issue will be one of law so that regardless of the wishes of the parties, the only determination to be made will be that by the judge.
Assuming, however, that there are issues of fact and that the attorney would prefer that such issues be decided by a jury, the question is posed: Does my client have a right to a trial by jury?