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.
14 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 2005–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Carl J. Brandenburg v. State of Indianagreen2 sentences2018Brandenburg v. State, 992 N.E.2d 951, 953 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. [20] Newbern argues that the trial court’s finding that he violated the terms of his probation was based in part on inadmissible evidence, i.e., the information gathered from his phone. 2017Brandenburg v. State, 992 N.E.2d 951, 953 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. | 7 | 8 |
Thornton v. Stategreen1 sentence2017See id. | 1 | 1 |
Sanders v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Brandenburg v. State, 992 N.E.2d 951, 953 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied; Sanders v. State, 825 N.E.2d 952, 956 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Puckett v. Stategreen1 sentence2014Puckett v. State, 956 N.E.2d 1182, 1186 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (citing Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3 (g)). | 1 | 1 |
Goonen v. Stategreen1 sentence2012Goonen v. State, 705 N.E.2d 209, 212 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999); Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3 (g) (providing that trial court may, upon finding of a probation violation, continue probation, extend probation, or order execution of all or part of the sentence suspended). | 1 | 1 |
Devon D. Dokes, Jr. v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2012See Dokes, 971 N.E.2d at 180-81 (“Because of the difference between the burden of proof required to convict someone of a crime and the burden of proof required to revoke probation, the court could revoke probation after finding [defendant] not guilty based on the same evidence.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mark Lee Votra v. State of Indiana
green
1 sentence2020Votra, 121 N.E.3d at 1113 . [9] On February 3, 2020, Norton failed to submit a required sample for drug testing, and on January 30, 2020, and February 7, 2020, Norton tested positive for methamphetamines and amphetamines. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Stephens v. State
green
1 sentence2005The Supreme Court in Stephens held that "a trial court has the statutory authority to order executed time following revocation of probation that is less than the length of the sentence originally suspended, so long as, when combined with the executed time previously ordered, the total sentence is not less than the statutory minimum." 818 N.E.2d at 942 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.