of discretion issue because it held that Hill' failed to preseiwe error. 308 S.W.3d at 471. However, the questions Hill asked were proper, and there was no need for him to rephrase because there were no defects for him to cure. Moreover, he made clear why he was entitled to ask the requested questions. The court instead ordered him to ask a question that did not address the issue of juror bias and then directed him to “move on” without asking any further questions on the topic. But the candid admissions of bias by the potential jurors, before the trial court suspended that line of questioning, establish both the propriety of the question and the trial court’s abuse in denying Hill the right to ask it. As such, error was preserved. Babcock, 767 S.W.2d at 708; Vasquez, 189 S.W.3d at 758 (<HOLDING>). The trial court rejected the second line of
holding that signed court minutes are not proper orders holding that denial of remand was proper where plaintiff failed to raise the proper objection holding that a trial court may not foreclose a proper line of questioning where the actual questions posed are proper holding state is not a proper defendant under  1983 holding venue proper where proper when the action was commenced