Criminal contempt for violation of a no contact order and ninety-day jail sentence was vacated on double jeopardy grounds because the State filed an invasion of privacy charge on the same day as the contempt hearing.
Butler v. State, No. 19A-MI-5, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 27, 2019).
The trial court properly ordered the forfeiture of defendant’s car because the 2018 amendments to Indiana’s civil-forfeiture scheme were procedural in nature and do not constitute an ex post facto law; defendant failed to establish that the seizure of the car was in any way improper.
American Consulting, Inc. v. Hannum Wagle & Cline Engineering, Inc., No. 18S-PL-00437, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 18, 2019).
The liquidated damages provisions in the noncompetition and non-solicitation agreements are unenforceable penalties because the provisions are too broad and capture too much conduct to be construed as a reasonable measure of damages resulting from a breach.
Henderson v. Henderson, No. 19A-DC-1517, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 18, 2019).
Husband’s contractual interest as the contract purchaser in certain real estate was properly included in the marital estate even thought it is is titled in a third-party.
In re Termination of Parent-Child Relationship, S.K., No. 19A-JT-1797, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 23, 2019).
The Indian Child Welfare Act did not apply to child because the child did not belong to a federally recognized tribe.