In Greenway v. Heathcott, the supreme court held that it is not always an abuse of discretion to not inform a litigant of the need or the ability to do something. In 2007, Greenway sued Heathcott, her former domestic partner, for a variety of domestic issues. At trial, Greenway, proceeding pro se, had witness affidavits rejected. She subsequently lost all her claims. On appeal, Greenway argued the court should have provided more assistance during the trial. The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that while a pro se means litigant is given help with procedural requirements, the court must not participate too much in the trial. Thus, the court concluded it was not its duty to inform her the witnesses whose affidavits had been rejected could be called telephonically to present their testimony. Greenway was fully aware such procedure was at her disposal since she had called witnesses telephonically earlier in the trial. Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that it is not always an abuse of discretion to not inform a litigant of the need or the ability to do something.