Hopper v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• \Because a defendant may suffer the loss of his [or her] liberty by having judgment entered and by being subsequently sentenced upon termination of treatment .... we hold that an individual placed under drug treatment supervision has a protected liberty interest.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Rogers
  Idaho Supreme Court· 2007-10-22· cited 35×
• Gosha v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2010-07-30· cited 9×
• State v. Brookman State v. Carnes
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 2018-07-31· cited 9×
• Deurloo v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1998-01-27· cited 8×
• Harris v. Com.
  Supreme Court of Virginia· 2010-02-25· cited 6×
• State of Idaho v. Paul Rogers
  Idaho Court of Appeals· 2006-08-22
• Gosha v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2010-05-28

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth
  Supreme Court· 1972-06-29· cited 14,284×
• Morrissey v. Brewer
  Supreme Court· 1972-06-29· cited 10,835×
• Gagnon v. Scarpelli
  Supreme Court· 1973-05-14· cited 5,755×
• Meachum v. Fano
  Supreme Court· 1976-06-25· cited 3,743×
• Plan-Tec, Inc. v. Wiggins
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1983-01-11· cited 109×
• Wells v. State
  Indiana Supreme Court· 1970-09-09· cited 66×
• Altmeyer v. State
  Indiana Supreme Court· 1988-02-09· cited 39×
• Pinkston v. State
  Indiana Supreme Court· 1982-06-23· cited 36×
• Johnson v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1978-09-18· cited 21×
• Ottman v. State
  Indiana Supreme Court· 1979-12-07· cited 20×
• City of Indianapolis v. Tabak
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1982-10-28· cited 6×