Swanson v. Swanson

I dissent. The prevailing opinion concedes that on the merits the case was a "close one." On the evidence, then, the jury might have returned a verdict for either the plaintiff or the defendant, and such verdict would have been upheld by this court. A reading of the record establishes beyond doubt that both plaintiff's counsel and defendant's counsel frequently were "off side," and indulged in improper colloquy. However, because of the misconduct of plaintiff's counsel a new trial is ordered. As to whether a new trial should result because of misconduct is almost wholly discretionary with the…