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.
Supreme
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.
A.M. v. State, No. 19S-JV-603, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Nov. 12, 2019).
A court should evaluate a juvenile’s claim of ineffective counsel in a delinquency disposition-modification hearing by using a due process standard; it should consider counsel’s overall performance to determine if the child received a fundamentally fair hearing resulting in a disposition that served his best interests.
Kenworth of Indianapolis, Inc. v. Seventy-Seven Ltd., No. 19S-PL-37, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Nov. 12, 2019).
“Under the equitable estoppel doctrine, a party’s conduct—even relating to the repair of goods—may toll a contractually agreed-upon limitations period when that conduct is of a sufficient affirmative character to prevent inquiry, elude investigation, or mislead the other party into inaction.”
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.