A hunch, or mere speculation, that a GPS unit was stolen from the target vehicle is insufficient to establish probable cause for a warrant to search the subject’s residence and/or his adjoining property.
L. Rush
Blair v. EMC Mortgage, LLC., No. 19S-MF-530, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 17, 2020).
“Indiana’s two applicable statutes of limitations recognize three events triggering the accrual of a cause of action for payment upon a promissory note containing an optional acceleration clause. First, a lender can sue for a missed payment within six years of a borrower’s default. Second, a lender can exercise its option to accelerate and fast-forward to the note’s maturity date, rendering the full balance immediately due. The lender must then bring a cause of action within six years of that acceleration date. Or, third, a lender can opt not to accelerate and sue for the entire amount owed within six years of the note’s date of maturity.”
Collins Asset Group, LLC v. Alialy, No. 19S-CC-531, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 17, 2020).
Lender could recover equally under Ind. Code § 26-1-3.1-118 and Ind. Code § 34-11-2-9 because it filed suit within six years of acceleration.
Heraeus Medical, LLC v. Zimmer, Inc., No. 19S-PL-471, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 3, 2019).
Parties to noncompetition agreements cannot use a reformation clause to contract around the blue pencil doctrine, which provides that reviewing courts may delete, but not add, language to revise unreasonable restrictive covenants.
State v. Timbs, No. 27S04-1702-MI-70, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 28, 2019).
The Eighth Amendment’s protection against excessive fines places not only an instrumentality limit on use-based in rem fines, but also a proportionality one. Based on the totality of the circumstances, if the punitive value of the forfeiture is grossly disproportional to the gravity of the underlying offenses and the owner’s culpability for the property’s criminal use, the fine is unconstitutionally excessive.