The language of one of the final jury instructions could have reasonably been interpreted and applied by the jury in a way that substantially misstated the plaintiff’s burden of proof to establish defendant’s negligence.
B. Dickson
Witt v. Jay Petroleum, Inc., No. 38S02-1110-CV-608, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., March 21, 2012).
The trial court correctly held the parties and attorney in contempt, determined the sanction, and imposed it jointly and severally.
Marion Co. Auditor v. Sawmill Creek, LLC, No. 49S02-1106-CV-364, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., March 21, 2012).
Auditor’s effort to notify property owner of the tax sale was constitutionally proficient in meeting the requirements of due process.
Hunt Construction Group, Inc. v. Garrett, No. 49S02-1106-CT-36, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., March 22, 2012).
A construction manager may not be held liable to a worker for negligence because the construction manager did not have a legal duty by its contracts or by its actions.
Hampton v. State, No. 84S04-1103-PC-161, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Feb. 14, 2012).
When the evidence of the actus reus of the crime is entirely circumstantial, an instruction is required that “[i]n determining whether the guilt of the accused is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, you should require that the proof be so conclusive and sure as to exclude every reasonable theory of innocence.” Pattern Instruction on the topic inappropriately has the jury rather than the judge determine whether evidence is all circumstantial, and mens rea evidence should not be subject to the special instruction. In this case, DNA evidence would appropriately have been considered as circumstantial.