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 2001–2017 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Pitman v. Stategreen2 sentences2014“If there is substantial evidence of probative 4 We direct Rowley’s attorney to Indiana Appellate Rule 50(F), which provides that parties should not reproduce any portion of the transcript in the appendix. 8 value to support the trial court’s decision that the probationer committed any violation, revocation of probation is appropriate.” Id. “[V]iolation of a single condition of probation is sufficient to revoke probation.” Id. 2014“If there is substantial evidence of probative 4 We direct Rowley’s attorney to Indiana Appellate Rule 50(F), which provides that parties should not reproduce any portion of the transcript in the appendix. 8 value to support the trial court’s decision that the probationer committed any violation, revocation of probation is appropriate.” Id. “[V]iolation of a single condition of probation is sufficient to revoke probation.” Id. | 1 | 2 |
Jenkins v. Stategreen1 sentence2016Jenkins v. State, 956 N.E.2d 146, 148 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (citations omitted), trans. denied (2012). [11] Here, the State alleged, and the trial court found, that Byrd violated three conditions of his probation. | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence2001Williams v. State, 695 N.E.2d 1017,1018 (Ind.Ct.App.1998). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
JJC v. State
green
2 sentences2012Id. 2011Id. | 5 | 2007–2012 |
Baxter v. State
green
2 sentences2017Id. [16] Rule nine of L.U.’s probation required L.U. to notify his probation officer within twenty-four hours of any change in his employment. 2003Id. | 4 | 2003–2017 |
TW v. State
green
2 sentences2017Id. [13] Probation revocation is a two-step process. 2016Id. [13] Here, on June 19, 2015, MCCC filed a notice of MCCC violation, alleging that Klemme entered an exclusionary zone multiple times, failed to comply with the rules and regulations of MCCC, and failed to maintain communication with MCCC. | 2 | 2016–2017 |
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.