Opinion ID: 610152
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sufficiency of Evidence to Support Jury's Verdict

Text: 11 The Zallers contend that the district court erred in denying their motion for a directed verdict because they proved beyond a preponderance of the evidence that Lykowski breached the contract by failing to undertake the alterations and deviations requested by them to complete the building project. In diversity cases, state law governs the standard for reviewing the denial of a motion for a directed verdict. Deimer v. Cincinnati Sub-Zero Products, Inc., No. 92-1030, slip op. at 3-4 (7th Cir. Apr. 6, 1993). Under Indiana law, an appellate court reviews a trial court's grant of a motion for a directed verdict after considering the evidence and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in favor of the nonmoving party. See Knight v. Baker, 363 N.E.2d 1048, 1050 (Ind.App.1977). A directed verdict should be granted only where there is no evidence or legitimate inferences in favor of the nonmovant, or where there is no conflict over the evidence and all possible inferences favor the movant. Id. The evidence need not be convincing or uncontradicted, but there must be some evidence or inference supporting the nonmovant on the issue. See Strong v. Commercial Carpet Co., Inc., 322 N.E.2d 387, 391 (Ind.App.1975). 12 Applying this standard here, the district court properly denied the Zallers' motion for a directed verdict. The jury heard conflicting stories about whether Lykowski agreed to be responsible for Amos's work and whether the problems with the building project were caused by the Zallers' own action or inaction. Because of these conflicts, a directed verdict would have been inappropriate. The evidence was sufficiently ambiguous and controverted to demand resolution by the jury.