Statutory prohibition against restraints on marriage applies only to a devise to a spouse by will and not to other dispositions, like a trust.
G. Slaughter
Isom v. State, 20A-CR-2261, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 30, 2021).
Defendant’s trial and appellate counsel were not ineffective; the post-conviction court did not err in denying relief.
Cutchin v. Beard, No. 21S-CQ-48, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 30, 2021).
Indiana Medical Malpractice Act applies when a plaintiff alleges that a qualified health-care provider treated someone else negligently and that the negligent treatment injured the plaintiff.
State v. Timbs, 20S-MI-289, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 10, 2021).
The excessiveness test announced in State v. Timbs, 134 N.E.3d 12 (Ind. 2019), has two dimensions: instrumentality and proportionality. Instrumentality is not at issue in here because Timbs acknowledged that he used the forfeited vehicle to traffic heroin. As to proportionality, courts must look to whether the forfeiture is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offenses and the claimant’s culpability. This inquiry turns on three factors: the culpability of the claimant for misusing the forfeited property, the harshness of the forfeiture, and the gravity of the claimant’s underlying offenses.
Combs v. State, 20S-CR-616, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 3, 2021).
The plain view exception to the warrant requirement may justify the seizure of a vehicle believed to be the fruit, instrumentality, or evidence of a crime provided that police are lawfully in a position from which to view the vehicle, its incriminating character is immediately apparent, and police have a lawful right of access to the vehicle.