Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Midcap

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an adverse inference instruction is proper where evidence was destroyed intentionally or recklessly and rejecting the notion that evidence of bad faith is always required
• reversing judgment when trial court issued spoliation 43 instruction to jury but failed to make a preliminary evidentiary finding regarding the purported document destruction
• “The custom or practice in a particular industry is probative of what conduct is reasonable under the circumstances.”
• adverse inferences “require a preliminary finding of intentional or reckless destruction of evidence”
• “An adverse inference instruction is appropriate where a litigant intentionally or recklessly destroys evidence, when it knows that the item in question is relevant to a legal dispute or it was otherwise under a legal duty to preserve the item.”
• “An adverse inference [determination] is appropriate where a litigant intentionally or recklessly destroys evidence, when it knows that the item in question is relevant to a legal dispute or it was otherwise under a legal duty to preserve the item.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).