Payne motion in Indiana

2019Payne v. State , 854 N.E.2d 1199 , 1202-05 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied . 6 Arguments not preserved for our review on this issue include Payne's argument that the stipulation he signed prior to the administration of the polygraph examination did not sufficiently advise him of his rights and was unlawfully ambiguous; that he was not properly Mirandized prior to his May confession; and that his confession resulted from "flagrant" misconduct by Parke County law enforcement officers in "exploit[ing] an obviously delusional man." Appellant's Br. at 34.

2019Payne also cites Levee v. Beeching, 729 N.E.2d 215 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), in support of his claim, but that case is distinguishable because it dealt with a claim of tortious interference with a contractual relationship rather than a claim of breach of contract. [54] We conclude the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the Holding Company on Payne’s claim for breach of contract.

2019But given what we just said above and that the United States Supreme Court clarified after Brown that the automobile exception “has no separate exigency requirement,” Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465 (1999), Brown does not support Payne’s claim.

1894There are many cases holding that a long and unexplained delay in asking equitable relief is cause for denying relief; but these are cases where the position of the parties had become materially changed or the rights of third persons had intervened in consequence of such delay, as, for example, the following cases cited by the appellants’ counsel in their able brief: Earle v. Earle, 91 Ind. 327 , which was an attempt to set aside a judgment of divorce for fraud in its procurement, after the wrongdoer had remarried; Nicholson v. Nicholson, supra, in which it appears that the defendant had remar