“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.”
Supreme
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.
In re Ma.H., No. 19S-JT-323, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 31, 2019).
Trial court did not violate father’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by requiring father to select and complete a course of sex-offender treatment as part of civil child welfare proceedings.
Gibson v. State, No. 22S00-1601-PD-00009, 22S00-1608-PD-00411, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 24, 2019).
Gibson, who was sentenced to death, received the effective assistance of trial counsel
Schuler v. State, No. 31S00-1703-LW-134, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 18, 2019).
Because the trial court’s revised sentencing order demonstrated that it did not rely on non-statutory aggravating circumstances in imposing life without parole, the order was not improper.