29 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Coleman v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Developmentgreen2 sentences2014Just cause for discharge includes “refusing to obey instructions” and “knowing violation of a reasonable and uniformly enforced rule of an employer[.]” I.C. § 22-4-15- 1(d); see also Coleman v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 905 N.E.2d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). 2014Just cause for discharge includes “knowing violation of a reasonable and uniformly enforced rule of an employer[.]” I.C. § 22-4-15-1(d); see also Coleman v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 905 N.E.2d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). | 5 | 5 |
Stanrail Corp. v. Review Board of the Department of Workforce Developmentgreen2 sentences2015Stanrail Corp. v. Review Bd. of Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 735 N.E.2d 1197, 1202 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), trans. denied; Ind.Code § 22-4-15-1. 1 Ind.Code § 22-4-15-l(d) provides that “[discharge for just cause” is defined to include a “knowing violation of a reasonable and uniformly enforced rule of an employer....” [19] Employee contends that he did not neglect Client D and was not discharged for just cause. 2013However, in Stanrail we considered a “knowing violation of a reasonable and uniformly enforced rule of an employer.” Id. (citing I.C. § 22-4-15-1(d)(2)). | 3 | 4 |
McClain v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Developmentgreen2 sentences2011Recker points to several cases decided by the Court of Appeals that, in her opinion, hold that a breach of duty must be "willful.” Appellant's Br. at 8-9 (citing McClain, 693 N.E.2d at 1318-20 (holding that an employee violated a reasonable and uniformly enforced rule of his employer when he allowed another employee to "clock out” his timecard); McHugh v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 842 N.E.2d 436, 442 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (holding that an employee breached a duty to her employer when she told her employer she was taking time off work to attend to personal matters but attended a s 2003"In order to establish a prima facie case for violation of an employer rule under [Indiana Code Section] 22-4-15-1(d)(2), the employer must demonstrate that the employee knowingly violated a reasonable and uniformly enforced rule." McClain v. Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 693 N.E.2d 1314, 1318 (Ind.1998). "[AJn employer's asserted work rule must be reduced to writing and introduced into evidence in order for us to fairly and reasonably evaluate a determination that an employee was justly discharged for a knowing violation of that rule. | 2 | 2 |
Hehr v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Divisiongreen2 sentences2011Div., 534 N.E.2d 1122, 1126 (Ind.Ct.App.1989) (holding that an employee breached a duty to his employer when he damaged or attempted to damage property on the employer's premises), trans. not sought.) However, we note that all of these cases were decided before Giova-noni, which clarified that fault is a distinct inquiry. 1998Hehr, 534 N.E.2d at 1125 . | 1 | 2 |
Russell v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Employment & Training Servicesgreen2 sentences1996See also Russell v. Review Bd., 586 N.E.2d 942, 948 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) ("had [employee] been discharged, while her two companions ... were retained by [the company), a different case would be presented, seriously bringing [the company's] uniform enforcement of the rule into question.") Discharge for just cause includes the knowing violation of a reasonable and uniformly enforced rule of an employer. 1996Russell, 586 N.E.2d 942 at 948 . | 1 | 2 |
McClanahan v. Remington Freight Lines, Inc.green1 sentence2014“Collateral estoppel ‘applies where a particular issue is adjudicated and *811 then put in issue in a subsequent suit on a different cause of action between the same parties or their privies.’ ” Ghosh v. Ind. State Ethics Comm’n, 930 N.E.2d 23, 26 (Ind.2010) (quoting McClanahan v. Remington Freight Lines, Inc., 517 N.E.2d 390, 394 (Ind.1988)). | 1 | 1 |
Ghosh v. Indiana State Ethics Commissiongreen1 sentence2014“Collateral estoppel ‘applies where a particular issue is adjudicated and *811 then put in issue in a subsequent suit on a different cause of action between the same parties or their privies.’ ” Ghosh v. Ind. State Ethics Comm’n, 930 N.E.2d 23, 26 (Ind.2010) (quoting McClanahan v. Remington Freight Lines, Inc., 517 N.E.2d 390, 394 (Ind.1988)). | 1 | 1 |
City of Carmel v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and Greg Parkgreen1 sentence2014City of Carmel v. Review Bd., 970 N.E.2d 239, 245 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Indiana Department of Workforce Developmentgreen1 sentence2012Meeting this burden required Martin to show that 6 Hammond “(1) knowingly violated; (2) a reasonable; and (3) uniformly enforced rule.” Brown v. Indiana Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 919 N.E.2d 1147, 1151 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). | 1 | 1 |
McHugh v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Developmentgreen1 sentence2011Recker points to several cases decided by the Court of Appeals that, in her opinion, hold that a breach of duty must be "willful.” Appellant's Br. at 8-9 (citing McClain, 693 N.E.2d at 1318-20 (holding that an employee violated a reasonable and uniformly enforced rule of his employer when he allowed another employee to "clock out” his timecard); McHugh v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 842 N.E.2d 436, 442 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (holding that an employee breached a duty to her employer when she told her employer she was taking time off work to attend to personal matters but attended a s | 1 | 1 |
Doughty v. Review Board of the Department of Workforce Developmentgreen1 sentence2011Recker points to several cases decided by the Court of Appeals that, in her opinion, hold that a breach of duty must be "willful.” Appellant's Br. at 8-9 (citing McClain, 693 N.E.2d at 1318-20 (holding that an employee violated a reasonable and uniformly enforced rule of his employer when he allowed another employee to "clock out” his timecard); McHugh v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 842 N.E.2d 436, 442 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (holding that an employee breached a duty to her employer when she told her employer she was taking time off work to attend to personal matters but attended a s | 1 | 1 |
Giovanoni v. INDIANA DEPT. OF WRKFRC. DEVT.green1 sentence2011In Giov-anoni, we held that a “ ‘no-fault’ attendance policy ... may form an appropriate basis for discharge from employment” but that eligibility for unemployment benefits following such discharge must consider “whether, under the totality of circumstances, an employee’s absenteeism is the result of circumstances beyond that employee’s control.” 927 N.E.2d at 912. | 1 | 1 |
Watterson v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Employment & Training Servicesgreen2 sentences2003We believe that such is the minimum evidence necessary for the employer to satisfy its burden, by substantial evidence of probative value, that it has a rule and that that rule is reasonable and uniformly enforced." Watterson v. Review Bd. of Indiana Dep't of Employment and Training Servs., 568 N.E.2d 1102, 1105 (Ind.Ct.App.1991). 2003We believe that such is the minimum evidence necessary for the employer to satisfy its burden, by substantial evidence of probative value, that it has a rule and that that rule is reasonable and uniformly enforced." Watterson v. Review Bd. of Indiana Dep't of Employment and Training Servs., 568 N.E.2d 1102, 1105 (Ind.Ct.App.1991). | 1 | 1 |
Conseco, Inc. v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Employment & Training Servicesgreen1 sentence1998Conseco, Inc. v. Review Bd., 626 N.E.2d 559, 561 (Ind.Ct.App.1993), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jeffboat, Inc. v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division
green
2 sentences2009Having decided that absences partially caused by illness may lead to discharge for just cause so long as they are incorporated into a reasonable and uniformly enforced plan, we need only address whether the [attendance policy] was reasonable and whether it was knowingly violated and uniformly enforced. 464 N.E.2d at 380 . 2009Having decided that absences partially caused by illness may lead to discharge for just cause so long as they are incorporated into a reasonable and uniformly enforced plan, we need only address whether the [attendance policy] was reasonable and whether it was knowingly violated and uniformly enforced. 464 N.E.2d at 380 . | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Wakshlag v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division
green
2 sentences1995Id. 1982In construing this provision of the statute, this court has said: “Determination of just cause is a question of fact. [Citation omitted.] It is conduct evidencing such wilful or wanton disregard of the employer’s interest as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has a right to expect of his employee, or a carelessness or negligence of such a degree or recurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent, or evil design, or to show an intentional or substantial disregard of the employer’s interest, or of the employee’s duties or oblig | 2 | 1982–1995 |
Love v. Heritage House Convalescent Center
green
2 sentences1988In Love, supra, the employer had a policy which provided that a total of six days of absence in a six-month period would cause a counselling report to be completed; following such report any additional absences would be cause for the employee's termination, regardless of the reason for the absence. 1988In Love, supra, the employer had a policy which provided that a total of six days of absence in a six-month period would cause a counselling report to be completed; following such report any additional absences would be cause for the employee’s termination, regardless of the reason for the absence. | 2 | 1988–1988 |
P.K.E. v. Review Board of Indiana Department of Workforce Development
green
1 sentence2014PKE, 942 N.E.2d at 130 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Browning-Ferris Industries v. Review Board of Indiana Department of Workforce Development
green
2 sentences2000Browning-Ferris Indus. v. Review Bd. of Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 693 N.E.2d 1351 . 2000Browning-Ferris Indus, v. Review Bd. of Indiana Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 693 N.E.2d 1351 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
KBI, Inc. v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development
green
1 sentence1996Discharge for just cause includes a knowing violation of a reasonable and uniformly enforced rule of an employer, KBI, 656 N.E.2d at 847 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Moore v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division
green
1 sentence1990Moore, supra. As noted above, there is insufficient evidence that Blackwell knew about the rule-even if we knew what the rule required. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Barnett v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division
green
1 sentence1983The section of the statute that controls this ease is Ind.Code 22-4-15-1(e) as follows: “ ‘Discharge for just cause’ as used in this section is defined to include but not be limited to: (1) separation initiated by an employer for falsification of an employment application to obtain employment through subterfuge; (2) knowing violation of a reasonable and uniformly enforced rule of an employer; (3) unsatisfactory attendance, if the individual cannot show good cause for absences or tardiness; (4) damaging the employer’s property through wilful negligence; (5) refusing to obey instructions; (6) re | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Perez v. United States Steel Corp.
green
2 sentences1983Perez v. United States Steel Corp. (1981), Ind., 426 N.E.2d 29 . *865 Sloan contends the findings before us are deficient because the Review Board failed to make a finding that the employer's instruction was reasonable. 1983Perez v. United States Steel Corp. (1981), Ind., 426 N.E.2d 29 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Gardner v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division
green
2 sentences1979This insufficiently specific finding by the Review Board by itself would be grounds for reversal, Gardner v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division, (1974) 162 Ind.App. 125 , 318 N.E.2d 361, 366 , but we further note that, as the above excerpt from the testimony shows, there is no evidence to sustain either finding. 1979This insufficiently specific finding by the Review Board by itself would be grounds for reversal, Gardner v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division, (1974) 162 Ind.App. 125 , 318 N.E.2d 361, 366 , but we further note that, as the above excerpt from the testimony shows, there is no evidence to sustain either finding. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.