Ind. Code » Title 31
Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 31-40-2-3 (2026)

County supplemental juvenile probation services fund; disposition of unused money

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     Sec. 3. Money remaining in the county supplemental juvenile probation services fund at the end of the county's fiscal year does not revert to any other fund but continues in the county supplemental juvenile probation services fund.

[Pre-1997 Recodification Citation: 31-6-4-18(h) part.]

As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.23.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2010–2016 · leading case: St. Joseph Cnty. Commissioners v. Nemeth, 929 N.E.2d 703 (Ind. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
St. Joseph Cnty. Commissioners v. Nemeth, 929 N.E.2d 703 (Ind. 2010). · cites it 2× “Ind.Code § 31-40-2-3. In their motion to dismiss, the Commissioners argued that the court had no authority to mandate that the raises be paid from the JPS Fund because the raises were not for probation officers or supplementing probation services and such use of the JPS Funds…”
In the Matter of: K.D., a Child in Need of Servs., S.D. (Mother) & Ke.D. (Father) v. Ind. Dept. of Child Servs. (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “[28] The juvenile court’s order is entirely consistent with the relevant provisions of Indiana Code section 31-40-2-3. Moreover, while it seems reasonable that Parents should be able to challenge reimbursement requests they consider to be unreasonable, there is no indication…”
In the Matter of Mandate of Funds St. Joseph Cnty. Commissioners & St. Joseph Cnty. Council v. The Hon. Peter J. Nemeth & the St. Joseph Prob. Court (Ind. 2010). · cites it 2× “Ind. Code § 31-40-2-3 . In their motion to dismiss, the Commissioners argued that the court had no authority to mandate that the raises be paid from the JPS Fund because the raises were not for probation of- ficers or supplementing probation services and such use of the JPS…”
— Ind. Code § 31-40-2-3(c) — 1 case
In the Matter of: K.D., a Child in Need of Servs., S.D. (Mother) & Ke.D. (Father) v. Ind. Dept. of Child Servs. (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “[28] The juvenile court’s order is entirely consistent with the relevant provisions of Indiana Code section 31-40-2-3. Moreover, while it seems reasonable that Parents should be able to challenge reimbursement requests they consider to be unreasonable, there is no indication…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.