“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[.]’”
Supreme
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.’”
Sargent v. State, No. 49D07-1111-MI-44802, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Mar. 24, 2015).
Reverses forfeiture of vehicle on basis that employee detained in her workplace while trying to illegally take employer’s property was not in possession, constructive or otherwise, of her automobile parked in the lot at the place of employment.
T.K. v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, No. 49S02-1503-MH-138, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 19, 2015).
Emphasizes that for a civil commitment the necessary elements of “either dangerous or gravely disabled” must be established by clear and convincing evidence.