Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 1993–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Progressive Construction & Engineering Co. v. Indiana & Michigan Electric Co.green2 sentences2004Co., Inc., 533 N.E.2d 1279, 1284 (Ind.Ct.App.1989) (borrowed servant doctrine states that "an employee while generally employed by one party, may be loaned to another in such a manner that the special employer may be responsible for the acts of the employee under the doctrine of respondeat superior" (quoting New York Centr. 1993See Progressive Construction and Engineering Co. v. Indiana and Michigan Electric Co. (1989), Ind.App., 533 N.E.2d 1279, 1284 . | 2 | 2 |
cluster 419974green1 sentence2009However, whether an employee is "acting within the seope of his office or employment" pursuant to the FTCA is a question of state, not federal, law. 11 See 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (b)(1); Williams v. United States, 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S.Ct. 100 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955) (per curiam); see, eg., Green v. United States, 709 F.2d 1158 , 1162 n. 3 (7th Cir.1983) ("Whether or not the borrowed servant rule ought to be applied is a question that must be answered by reference to 'the law of the place where the act or omission occurred." ") (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (b)). | 1 | 1 |
Romine v. Gaglegreen1 sentence2009See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) (requiring that all arguments be supported by cogent reasoning and citations to authority); Romine v. Gagle, 782 N.E.2d 369, 386 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) ("A party generally waives any issue for which it fails to develop a cogent argument or support with adequate citation to authority and portions of the record."). [8] In their briefs, IBC presents an argument negating the borrowed servant doctrine, and Allied Waste presents an argument negating that Appellees had rights under the Purchase Order. | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Motors Dispatch, Inc.green2 sentences1993See Johnson v. Motors Dispatch, Inc. (1977), 172 Ind.App. 285 , 360 N.E.2d 224, 228 ; New York Central Railroad Co. v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (1966), 140 Ind.App. 79, 85 , 221 N.E.2d 442 . 1993See Johnson v. Motors Dispatch, Inc. (1977), 172 Ind.App. 285 , 360 N.E.2d 224, 228 ; New York Central Railroad Co. v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (1966), 140 Ind.App. 79, 85 , 221 N.E.2d 442 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Moberly v. Day
green
1 sentence2018The ten-factor test in Moberly , which FCC and the Munseys concede applies here, does not include a "right to discharge" factor. 757 N.E.2d at 1010 n.3. 8 Again, there is no "right to discharge" factor in the Moberly ten-factor test, and we disagree with the court in Vinup that it has any bearing on the control factor under the Moberly test. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Hale v. Kemp
green
1 sentence2018The right to discharge is one of seven factors our courts consider to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship under the borrowed servant doctrine, see Hale v. Kemp , 579 N.E.2d 63 , 67 (Ind. 1991), which is not at issue in this appeal. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Williams v. United States
green
2 sentences2009However, whether an employee is "acting within the seope of his office or employment" pursuant to the FTCA is a question of state, not federal, law. 11 See 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (b)(1); Williams v. United States, 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S.Ct. 100 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955) (per curiam); see, eg., Green v. United States, 709 F.2d 1158 , 1162 n. 3 (7th Cir.1983) ("Whether or not the borrowed servant rule ought to be applied is a question that must be answered by reference to 'the law of the place where the act or omission occurred." ") (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (b)). 2009However, whether an employee is "acting within the seope of his office or employment" pursuant to the FTCA is a question of state, not federal, law. 11 See 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (b)(1); Williams v. United States, 350 U.S. 857 , 76 S.Ct. 100 , 100 L.Ed. 761 (1955) (per curiam); see, eg., Green v. United States, 709 F.2d 1158 , 1162 n. 3 (7th Cir.1983) ("Whether or not the borrowed servant rule ought to be applied is a question that must be answered by reference to 'the law of the place where the act or omission occurred." ") (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (b)). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
New York Central Railroad v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co.
green
2 sentences1993See Johnson v. Motors Dispatch, Inc. (1977), 172 Ind.App. 285 , 360 N.E.2d 224, 228 ; New York Central Railroad Co. v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (1966), 140 Ind.App. 79, 85 , 221 N.E.2d 442 . 1993See Johnson v. Motors Dispatch, Inc. (1977), 172 Ind.App. 285 , 360 N.E.2d 224, 228 ; New York Central Railroad Co. v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (1966), 140 Ind.App. 79, 85 , 221 N.E.2d 442 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.