Plaintiff is entitled to insurance coverage, including coverage for defense costs, except for its settlement losses.
Supreme
Myers v. State, No. 76S03-1407-CR-493, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Apr. 8, 2015).
Experts unanimously agreed defendant was legally insane, but other evidence in the record supported the jury’s conclusion that he was not; as it was not shown defendant was given Miranda rights, the State could use his post-arrest silence and request for an attorney as evidence of sanity without violating his due process rights.
Cohen & Malad, LLP v. Daly, No. 29S02-1504-PL-165, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 8, 2015).
“Absent agreement otherwise, ‘a lawyer retained under a contingent fee contract but discharged prior to the contingency is entitled to recover the value of services rendered if there is a subsequent settlement or award[,]’ and in that case, ‘the fee is to be measured by the proportion of the total fee equal to the contribution of the discharged lawyer’s efforts to the ultimate result[.]’”
Moore v. State, No. 71S00-1405-LW-361, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Mar. 24, 2015).
The incredible dubiosity rule is inapplicable in the present case because the factors [1) a sole testifying witness; 2) testimony that is inherently contradictory, equivocal, or the result of coercion; and 3) a complete absence of circumstantial evidence] were not present.
McCowan v. State, No. 64S03-1408-Cr-516, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Mar. 25, 2015).
“[I]t is the absolute right of every criminal defendant to receive the following jury instruction upon request: ‘The presumption of innocence continues in favor of the defendant throughout the trial. You should fit the evidence to the presumption that the defendant is innocent if you can reasonably do so.’”