Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
15 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2025 2 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Randy L. Thornton v. Matthew Pietrzak, Stephanie Buttz, Eric Lee, and Dianna Johnsongreen2 sentences2023Thornton v. Pietrzak, 120 N.E.3d 1139 (Ind. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CT-61 | November 14, 2023 Page 6 of 16 Ct. App. 2019). 2020J.A.W. v. State, 650 N.E.2d 1142, 1152 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), aff’d, 687 N.E.2d 1202 , 1203 n.3 (Ind. 1997); see also Thornton v. Pietrzak, 120 N.E.3d 1139, 1145 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (probation officers who filed a notice of probation violation were performing a task integral to the judicial process and were therefore entitled to quasi-judicial immunity as an arm of the judge), trans. denied. | 1 | 2 |
Medicus v. Stategreen1 sentence2025One such right is the entitlement to a “written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking.” Medicus v. State, 664 N.E.2d 1163, 1164 (Ind. 1996). [17] Here, the trial court’s written statement reads, in relevant part: “Court finds violation as alleged under paragraph 3A and 3B of the amended notice of probation violation. | 1 | 1 |
JAW v. Stategreen1 sentence2020J.A.W. v. State, 650 N.E.2d 1142, 1152 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), aff’d, 687 N.E.2d 1202 , 1203 n.3 (Ind. 1997); see also Thornton v. Pietrzak, 120 N.E.3d 1139, 1145 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (probation officers who filed a notice of probation violation were performing a task integral to the judicial process and were therefore entitled to quasi-judicial immunity as an arm of the judge), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Samm v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See Samm v. State, 893 N.E.2d 761, 765 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (“A case is deemed moot when no effective relief can be rendered to the parties before the court.”). | 1 | 1 |
Cooper v. Stategreen1 sentence2013A finding of guilt is not a necessary precursor for a finding of a violation based on a new criminal offense, Dokes v. State, 971 N.E.2d 178, 180-81 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), but an arrest standing alone does not support revocation of probation, Cooper v. State, 917 N.E.2d 667, 674 (Ind. 2009). | 1 | 1 |
Devon D. Dokes, Jr. v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2013A finding of guilt is not a necessary precursor for a finding of a violation based on a new criminal offense, Dokes v. State, 971 N.E.2d 178, 180-81 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), but an arrest standing alone does not support revocation of probation, Cooper v. State, 917 N.E.2d 667, 674 (Ind. 2009). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Reyes v. State
green
2 sentences2013Id. at 439 . 2012Id. at 439 . | 3 | 2010–2013 |
Willoughby v. State
green
2 sentences2017Specifically, the defendant argued “that the trial court should have credited him with time served from May 19, 1992, the date the notice of probation violation was filed in Marion County, until April 21, 1993, because he was in continuous custody.” Willoughby, 626 N.E.2d at 602 . 2001Although a notice of probation violation was filed in Marion County while the defendant was still incarcerated in Hamilton County, the warrant was not served upon the defendant until *1007 six months later "when [the defendant] was returned to Marion County." Id. | 2 | 2001–2017 |
Berry v. State
green
1 sentence2020Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1394 | March 10, 2020 Page 3 of 6 the parameters provided by statute, we will not find an abuse of discretion.” Berry, 950 N.E.2d at 799 . [6] Before addressing Fleming’s argument, we address the State’s contention that Fleming “cannot challenge the assessment of probation fees since they appeared in the original sentencing order and were not added as part of his sentence in the revocation hearing.” Appellee’s Brief at 7. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
JAW v. State
green
1 sentence2020J.A.W. v. State, 650 N.E.2d 1142, 1152 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), aff’d, 687 N.E.2d 1202 , 1203 n.3 (Ind. 1997); see also Thornton v. Pietrzak, 120 N.E.3d 1139, 1145 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (probation officers who filed a notice of probation violation were performing a task integral to the judicial process and were therefore entitled to quasi-judicial immunity as an arm of the judge), trans. denied. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Woods v. State
green
1 sentence2020When the State filed a notice of probation violation, the State and the defendant entered into an agreement under which the defendant would be placed on “strict compliance” probation, meaning that any violation would “result in full backup of 15 years.” Id. at 639 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Beeler v. State
green
1 sentence2019Beeler v. State , 959 N.E.2d 828 , 830 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied . [12] During the evidentiary hearing, the State presented the testimony of Warrum, who stated that he had reviewed the terms of probation with Bass. "[A] little over a week after he was on probation," Warrum filed a notice of probation violation, alleging that Bass had failed to reside at Stepping Stones, where his medications would be monitored, to keep the probation department informed of his address, to maintain employment, and to comply with his treatment program. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
D.L. ex rel. D.L. v. Huck
green
1 sentence2019Based on this, we conclude that, in filing the notice of probation violation, Appellees were "performing [a task] so integral or intertwined with the judicial process" that they should be "considered an arm of the judicial officer who is immune." See D.L. , 978 N.E.2d at 433 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Mumford v. State
green
2 sentences2001Cf. Mumford v. State, 651 N.E.2d 1176 (Ind.Ct.App.1995), trans. denied (discussing court's use of word "faultless" in regard to Slinkard's conduct during his original probationary term and determining that Mumford was not faultless although court specifically found that he did not violate probation as alleged in counts 1 through 4 of the notice of probation violation where counts 1 through 4 were only counts alleged to have occurred during original two-year probationary period). 2001Cf. Mumford v. State, 651 N.E.2d 1176 (Ind.Ct.App.1995), trans. denied (discussing court's use of word "faultless" in regard to Slinkard's conduct during his original probationary term and determining that Mumford was not faultless although court specifically found that he did not violate probation as alleged in counts 1 through 4 of the notice of probation violation where counts 1 through 4 were only counts alleged to have occurred during original two-year probationary period). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.