Legal Opinion

King v. Larsen

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided November 21, 1975No. 45542PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the District Court of Hennepin County. The only issue raised on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to reopen to take further testimony of one of the witnesses at trial.

Allowing a party to reopen his case for the purpose of presenting additional testimony is a matter within the discretion of the trial court, and his action will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of that discretion. Hamilton v. Killian, 296 Minn. 256, 207 N. W. 2d 703 (1973); State, by Lord, v. Casey, 263 Minn. 47, 115 N. W. 2d 749 (1962);…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. CaseySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1962
  2. Hamilton v. KillianSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1973
  3. State Ex Rel. Trevarthen v. City of EvelethSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1929

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Walton v. JonesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
  2. Sports Page, Inc. v. First Union Management, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989
  3. Montpetit v. Commissioner of Public SafetyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986
  4. Montpetit v. Commissioner of Public SafetyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API