curfew violation (Indiana) · Go Syfert
← Indiana issues

curfew violation in Indiana

5 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 1982–2018 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Parker v. Stategreen
indctapp · 1997 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
1 sentence

2012See Parker v. State, 676 N.E.2d 1083 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (“[The defendant’s] admission supports the trial court's finding that a violation occurred”).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
WM v. State green
indctapp · 1982
2 sentences

1982NOTES [1] Under I.C. 31-6-4-1(a) (Burns Code Ed., Repl. 1980) a status offender is one who "(2) Leaves home without reasonable cause and without permission of his parent, guardian, or custodian who requests his return; (3) Violates the compulsory school attendance law (IC 20-8.1-3[20-8.1-3-20-8.1-3-37]); (4) Habitually disobeys the reasonable and lawful commands of his parent, guardian, or custodian; (5) Commits a curfew violation; or (6) Violates IC 7.1-5-7[7.X-X-X-X-X.1-5-7-14]." [2] Contra W.M. v. State, (filed July 27, 1982) Ind. App., 437 N.E.2d 1028 , 2-1281 A 416. [3] In addition, the t

1982Contra W.M. v. State, (filed July 27, 1982) Ind.App., 437 N.E.2d 1028 , 2-1281 A 416. .

21982–1982
Mario Watkins v. State of Indiana green
ind · 2017
1 sentence

2018Section 2-J.G.'s detention did not violate Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. [22] J.G. also argues that his detention violated Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution, which "safeguards the 'right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search or seizure.' " Watkins v. State , 85 N.E.3d 597 , 600 (Ind. 2017).

12018–2018
LAF v. State green
indctapp · 1998
2 sentences

2000Id.

2000Id.

12000–2000

Where else courts name it

CA 15 (1993–2022) IL 6 (1968–2016) OR 6 (2007–2025) IN 5 (1982–2018) OH 5 (1985–2023) FL 5 (2008–2018) NY 4 (2000–2009) TX 4 (2001–2023) DC 4 (2011–2022) NM 4 (1999–2021) MN 4 (2004–2016) LA 2 (2010–2010) PA 2 (1995–2016)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check