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.
8 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Decker v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Decker v. State, 704 N.E.2d 1101, 1104 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). 1999See Decker v. State, 704 N.E.2d 1101, 1104 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (we held that the State need only prove that a revocation was warranted by a preponderance of the evidence, as a community corrections revocation hearing is civil in nature). | 2 | 2 |
State of Indiana v. Anthony Riveragreen1 sentence2019State v. Rivera, 20 N.E.3d 857, 860 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cox v. State
green
2 sentences2013Id. 2013Id. | 3 | 2013–2013 |
McQueen v. State
green
2 sentences2013That is, a community corrections revocation hearing is civil in nature, and the State need only “prove the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.” McQueen, 862 N.E.2d at 1242 . 4 When sufficiency of the evidence supporting revocation is challenged, “[w]e will consider all the evidence most favorable to the judgment of the trial court without reweighing that evidence or judging the credibility of witnesses.” Id. 2013That is, a community corrections revocation hearing is civil in nature, and the State need only “prove the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.” McQueen, 862 N.E.2d at 1242 . 4 When sufficiency of the evidence supporting revocation is challenged, “[w]e will consider all the evidence most favorable to the judgment of the trial court without reweighing that evidence or judging the credibility of witnesses.” Id. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Million v. State
green
1 sentence2000Id. (citations omitted). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.