D.C. v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “[T]he availability of a less restrictive alternative does not mean the juvenile court was required to order that placement.”
• “[T]he availability of a less restrictive alternative does not mean the juvenile court was required to order that placement.”
• \[T]he availability of a less restrictive alternative does not mean the juvenile court was required to order that placement.\
• “Given the serious nature of D.C.’s offense and the likelihood that he will reoffend, this is clearly a situation in which commitment to a less restrictive environment than DOC is not in the best interest of D.C. or of the community.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• DC v. State
  Indiana Supreme Court· 2011-11-17
• DC v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2010-10-14
• T.L. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2018-07-31
• M.J. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2019-07-30

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Matter of Tina T.
  Indiana Supreme Court· 1991-09-30· cited 80×
• J.S. v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2008-02-18· cited 71×
• St. Margaret Mercy Healthcare Centers, Inc. v. Poland
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2005-05-31· cited 20×
• Maroney v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2006-06-26· cited 15×
• R.J.G. v. State
  Indiana Supreme Court· 2009-03-10· cited 15×
• J.J. v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2010-04-30· cited 10×