The reopening of a party's case to allow additional testimony also lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. King v. Larsen, 306 Minn. 546, 235 N.W.2d 620 (1975); Hamilton v. Killian, 296 Minn. 256, 207 N.W.2d 703 (1973). Plaintiff maintains that the trial court should have done something less drastic than excluding Dr. Nesset's testimony, under these circumstances.
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); 19A Dunnell, Dig. (3 ed.) § 9716. By affidavit in support of the motion to reopen, the proposed witness stated that he had read the transcript of his testimony at trial and found that his testimony did not "reflect the true state of affairs."
Moreover, the district court's actions on remand are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Hamilton v. Killian, 296 Minn. 256, 259–60, 207 N.W.2d 703, 705 (1973); (allowing discretion in presenting additional evidence); Duffey v. Duffey, 432 N.W.2d 473, 476 (Minn.App.1988) (allowing discretion on remand). Having reviewed the district court's actions, we do not find obvious error in declining to readdress previous decisions, particularly when those decisions were addressed by this court in the previous appeal.
This court reviews that decision for an abuse of discretion. Hamilton v. Killian, 296 Minn. 256, 259-60, 207 N.W.2d 703, 705 (1973). The facts surrounding both David Rutt's purchase of the lake home and his titling and sale of the van were fully explored at trial, and appellants were aware of respondents' position that both were estate assets, even though that was not the personal representative's initial position.
III. A decision to allow a party to reopen the record rests within the sound discretion of the district court, and will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. Hamilton v. Killian, 296 Minn. 256, 259-60, 207 N.W.2d 703, 705 (Minn. 1973). Appellant argues that the district court should have reopened the record under Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure 59.01. But rule 59.01 is a discretionary rule and appellant does not identify any grounds under rule 59.01 that would justify reopening the record.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that a blood alcohol content of .26 with expert testimony as to the overt symptoms one could expect a person to exhibit at such a level were sufficient to create a jury question, even in the absence of direct testimony of obvious manifestations of intoxication. Hamilton v. Killian, 296 Minn. 256, 258-259, 207 N.W.2d 703, 705 (1973). In similar cases, the court has found a jury question where the allegedly intoxicated person (AIP) admitted to drinking heavily, his blood alcohol was .23 at the time of the accident, he was observed driving in a reckless manner, and he appeared obviously intoxicated to the arresting officer.
He wanted to call a witness to rebut Dieltz's testimony that he (Dieltz) used approximately $3000 from the closing check to purchase a car for Auto City. A decision to allow a party to reopen rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its decision will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion. Hamilton v. Killian, 296 Minn. 256, 259-60, 207 N.W.2d 703, 705 (1973). There was no abuse of discretion here.
The Commissioner alleged that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to allow him to reopen the case after he rested to allow the officer to testify as to the date discrepancy. A decision of whether to allow a party to reopen rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. Hamilton v. Killian, 296 Minn. 256, 259-60, 207 N.W.2d 703, 705 (1973). Mere inadvertence is not sufficient to require reopening.
The trial court action will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of that discretion. Hamilton v. Killian, 296 Minn. 256, 207 N.W.2d 703 (1973). Coverage held with a previous insurer has no bearing on whether Penn General made a meaningful offer of additional uninsured motorist coverage.