O'LAUGHLIN v. Barton

How courts have described this case

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

• reasoning that ‘‘[a]t the time of revocation, the cash deposit was not subject to a declaration of forfeiture, ceased to operate as bail, and was the property of [the defendant]. The deposit was therefore properly ordered subjected to attachment by creditors.” (DeBruler, J,, dissenting

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• O'LAUGHLIN v. Barton
  Indiana Supreme Court· 1991-12-12· cited 24×
• Lake County Clerk's Office v. Smith
  Indiana Supreme Court· 2002-04-22· cited 19×
• Nikelly v. Stubing
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1990-10-25· cited 14×
• Larkins v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1993-10-27· cited 7×
• O'LAUGHLIN v. Barton
  Indiana Supreme Court· 1991-05-30· cited 4×
• Dennis Garner v. Gregory Stewart Kempf and Vanderburgh County Clerk
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2017-01-30· cited 2×
• State v. Long
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1991-04-03· cited 2×

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• City of Evansville v. BYERS
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1964-12-01· cited 12×
• State v. Elliott
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1976-12-06· cited 11×
• County Department of Public Welfare of Lake County v. Morrow
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1973-10-16· cited 6×