Some jurisdictions--including, as of July 2021, Indiana, Arizona, and five of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal--treat material prepared for mediation or compromise negotiations, even if exchanged prior to the actual mediation or negotiations, as confidential.
Many state and federal courts have adopted "the equitable tolling doctrine of adverse domination." This doctrine is a corollary to the rule that the clock on a statute of limitations doesn't start to run until the plaintiff knows, or should know in the exercise of ordinary diligence, that they've been injured by tortious conduct. Adverse dominations tolls (pauses) the statute of limitations for actions by corporations against their officers, directors, lawyers, and accountants for so long as the corporation is controlled by those acting against its interests.
The text doesn't get into the concept of "good time credit," which allows prisoners to serve less than the full amount of their sentences if they stay out of trouble. Taking advantage of vocational training or educational opportunities may have a similar effect. A related issue, **which could provide great story material,** is what happens if a prisoner is erroneously released ahead of time. If they avoid any trouble with the law during that fortuitous period of freedom, should that period count as time served -- or even preclude their being locked up again? Federal case law, aka federal common law, has evolved in a fairer and more lenient direction on this point. Most federal courts now count these days at liberty as if the prisoner had still been incarcerated--and if the sentence comes to an end before the prisoner is hauled back into custody, they stay free.
In 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a student's expletive-laden Snapchat video denouncing the cheerleading program in her school (where she had just failed to make the varsity team) was not within the still-ill-defined category of speech outside of school which a school could nevertheless regulate as dangerous or disruptive.
Maine, too, has put an end to civil forfeiture, requiring a criminal conviction for any forfeiture and even then imposing various restrictions intended to increase transparency.
I failed to update this section after the U.S. Supreme Court held in 2019 (as I did mention in 29.D.) that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on excessive fines applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. That decision didn't go into whether civil forfeiture could qualify as an excessive fine. In 2021, the Indiana Supreme Court, citing holdings in other jurisdictions that disproportionality can make a fine excessive, found the forfeiture of a Land Rover -- the defendant's only asset -- which the defendant had used for trips to buy and sell small amounts of illegal drugs to be disproportionate and excessive.