Jordan Ex Rel. Shealey v. Masters

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that using the opinions of an expert that were not testified to during trial, which were irrelevant and solely used to destroy the credibility of the expert, was not admissible
• indicating that a Valcin rebuttable presumption would have been proper had the appellant offered evidence to support the existence of the videotape and had he established that the missing videotape was essential to proving a prima facie case of sexual abuse
• reversing in part on an adverse inference jury instruction which \constituted a comment on the evidence by the trial court and approval for the jury to conclude that all of that evidence would be unfavorable\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).