Seo v. State, No. 18S-CR-595, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jun. 23, 2020).

Even if a search warrant has been issued, forcing a person to unlock, and therefore disclose that contents of their cellphone, violates the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Gulzar v. State, No. 19S-XP-673, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jun. 24, 2020).

Amended expungement statute, which clarifies that the “date of conviction” for a felony reduced to a misdemeanor is the date of the felony conviction, applies retroactively.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

River Ridge Dev. Authority v. Outfront Media, LLC, No. 19S-PL-645, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 29, 2020).

“The common-law obdurate behavior exception and the General Recovery Rule cannot authorize a trial court to award attorney’s fees when a party voluntarily dismisses its suit with prejudice. But a court can, at any point in litigation, exercise its inherent authority to sanction a party’s bad behavior by shifting fees.”

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Heuring v. State, No. 19S-CR-528, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 20, 2020).

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.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

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.”

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion