Warger v. Shauers
United States Supreme Court
135 S. Ct. 521 (2014)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Gregory Warger (plaintiff) was in a car accident caused by Randy Shauers (defendant). Warger’s leg had to be amputated as a result, and Warger brought suit against Shauers for negligence. One the jurors, Regina Whipple, stated during voir dire that she was able to be an impartial juror on cases involving a car accident. The jury found in favor of Shauers. Subsequently, one of the jurors signed an affidavit stating that Whipple had said during jury deliberations that her daughter had previously caused a car accident in which a person had died. According to the affidavit, Whipple said that if someone had sued her daughter, it would have “ruined her life.” Warger filed a motion for a new trial based on the juror’s affidavit about Whipple’s statements. The district court denied Warger’s motion under Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 606(b). The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sotomayor, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.