Landscaping at a new home construction site does not fall under the Indiana Home Improvement Fraud Statute, which requires that the consumer live in the dwelling at the time of the home improvement.
Johnson v. State, No. 19A-CR-975, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 19, 2019).
Gaming Enforcement Agent unlawfully exceeded the scope of a pat down search by reaching into defendant’s pocket and removing a ball of powdered substance.
Buford v. State, No. 19A-CR-956, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 20, 2019).
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.