Minakan v. Husted

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that it was a violation of due process to refuse to allow the wife to testify and present evidence on a disputed issue of fact
• holding the trial court violated the wife’s due process rights by taking testimony from the husband but not allowing her to testify and present evidence
• “Even if [a party’s] evidence would not have impressed the court, a party has the right to present evidence and to argue the case at the conclusion of all the testimony.”
• “Even if [a party’s] evidence would not have impressed the court, a party has the right to present evidence and to argue the case at the conclusion of all the testimony.” (citation omitted)
• “Even if the wife's evidence would not have impressed the court, a party has the right to present evidence and to argue the case at the conclusion of all the testimony.”
• “Even if [a party’s] evidence would not have impressed the court, a party has the right to present evidence and to argue the case at the conclusion of all the testimony.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).