P claimed that his employment was terminated in retaliation for his speaking out about the improper use of public property and funds. P sued Ds. At the beginning of the trial, the district court required P to testify first so that some chronology would be laid out at the beginning of the case. This initial testimony was not subject to cross-examination at that time. P's counsel protested the court's reordering of the witnesses. Ds got the verdict and P appealed in part on this issue.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.