Skip to main content

Ratliff v. State

Citations

  • 741 N.E.2d 424
  • 2000 Ind. App. LEXIS 2185
  • 2000 WL 1877819

How courts have described this case

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

  • in reviewing sufficiency of sentencing statement, appellate court is not limited to written sentencing order
  • No misconduct on the State’s part where the questions asked “did not seek inflammatory or clearly improper answers, nor did the testimony establish any elements of the charged crimes”
  • addressing predecessor to Appellate Rule 31

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Robb, Mattingly, Mathias

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

23 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.