Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Teachout v. Wilson, 376 N.W.2d 460.

19 citing documents.

Walter Smith v. Eric A. Johnson, et al., Steven Scott Properties Management Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Walter Smith v. Eric A. Johnson, et al., Steven Scott Properties Management Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Judges may examine witnesses “to clarify the testimony.” (citing Minn. R. Evid.
State of Minnesota v. Peter Michael Dziuk Minn. Ct. App. 2025
614; (concluding that “the purpose of the questioning was to clarify the testimony,” and therefore, the district court’s questioning was “a proper exercise of the power granted by Rule 614”), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S. W., Parent Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Tesfaye Shikur v. Eric Halverson, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Velt Murray Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Velt Murray Minn. Ct. App. 2024
o call and interrogate witnesses “is consistent with the responsibility of the Court in insuring a speedy and just determination of the issues”); Olson v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, (finding that the district court properly exercised its authority in questioning a witness where counsel’s questioning had “partially covered the same ground”); (holding that, in a civil court trial, a trial judge’s clarifying questions to a witness were “a proper exercise of the power granted by Rule 614”), rev. deni
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Earl Lionell Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A trial judge’s questioning of a witness to clarify testimony in a bench trial is “a proper exercise of the power granted by Rule 614.” rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
Tesfaye Shikur v. Eric Halverson, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Chad Henry Lee Jackson v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Questioning a witness to clarify testimony is “a proper exercise of the power granted by Rule 614.” Teachout v. Wilson , rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. Alan Jon Nagle Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Teachout v. Wilson , review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Teachout v. Wilson , review denied (Minn. Dec.
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company as subrogee of Peter and Susan Fox v. Homewerks Worldwide, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Dec.
Ernest Malisheske, et al., Great West Casualty Company, Intervenor v. Kevin Kortan, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ernest Malisheske, et al., Great West Casualty Company, Intervenor v. Kevin Kortan, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
is at issue”); (stating that questioning to clarify testimony is a proper exercise of district court’s power), review denied (Minn. Dec.
Larson v. Lakeview Lofts, LLC 804 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Larson v. Lakeview Lofts, LLC 804 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“The determination of actual damages is a fact question reviewable under the clearly erroneous standard.” review denied (Minn. Dec.
Roberts v. Brunswick Corp. 783 N.W.2d 226 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Roberts v. Brunswick Corp. 783 N.W.2d 226 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
“The determination of actual damages is a fact question reviewable under the clearly erroneous standard.” review denied (Minn. Dec.