State v. Inkton

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that applying the sex offender registration statute to an offender who committed his offense prior to the enactment of the registration statute was not ex post facto punishment
• concluding that applying the sex offender registration statute to an offender who committed his offense prior to the enactment of the registration statute was not ex post facto punishment
• “it is not Zerbe’s crime that triggers his obligation to register as a sex offender in Indiana; rather it is his Michigan registry requirement that does so”
• “the significant responsibilities with respect to Zerbe’s registration are merely maintained across state lines, to be fulfilled where he currently lives and works”
• “the significant responsibilities with respect to Zerbe’s registration are merely maintained across state lines, to be fulfilled where he currently lives and works”
• “the significant responsibilities with respect to Zerbe’s registration are merely maintained across state lines, to be fulfilled where he currently lives and works”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).