opportunity for a fair hearing (Indiana) · Go Syfert
← Indiana issues

opportunity for a fair hearing in Indiana

23 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1951–2023 1 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.

Followed or applied (6)

CaseFollowedCited
Art Hill, Inc. v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Developmentgreen
indctapp · 2008 · cited in 13 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2011–2020
2 sentences

2020We held “that a party to an unemployment hearing may voluntarily waive the opportunity for a fair hearing where the party received actual notice of the hearing and failed to appear at or participate in the hearing.” Id. at 368 . [15] Like the employer in Art Hill, the County received actual notice of the telephonic hearing.

2019Bd. of Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 898 N.E.2d 363, 368 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (noting the employer provided a telephone extension to the administrative law judge’s office two days before the hearing but failed to notify it that its contact telephone number changed prior to the hearing and holding that a party to an unemployment hearing may voluntarily waive the opportunity for a fair hearing where the party received actual notice of the hearing and failed to appear at or participate in the hearing and that the employer was not denied a reasonable opportunity for a fair hearing or due process).

613
Atkinson v. City of Mariongreen
indctapp · 1980 · cited in 4 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2000–2017
2 sentences

2017“The tenure given a police officer ‘is a constitutionally protected interest requiring the opportunity for a fair hearing conducted in good faith before a full and impartial body.’” Sullivan v. City of Evansville, 728 N.E.2d 182, 187 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (quoting Atkinson v. City of Marion, 411 N.E.2d 622, 628 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000)).

2014“The tenure given a police officer ‘is a constitutionally protected interest requiring the opportunity for a fair hearing conducted in good faith before a full and impartial body.’” Sullivan v. City of Evansville, 728 N.E.2d 182, 187 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (quoting Atkinson v. City of Marion, 411 N.E.2d 622, 628 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980).

44
Dell v. City of Tiptongreen
indctapp · 1993 · cited in 3 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2000–2017
2 sentences

2009"The tenure given a police officer 'is a constitutionally protected interest requiring the opportunity for a fair hearing conducted in good faith before a full and impartial body."" Sullivan, 728 N.E.2d at 187 (quoting Atkinson v. City of Marion, 411 N.E.2d 622, 628 (Ind.Ct.App.1980) and citing Dell v. City of Tipton, 618 N.E.2d 1338, 1342 (Ind.Ct.App.1993), trans. denied (referring to Ind.Code section 36-8-3-4, which outlines police disciplinary hearing and appeal procedures)).

2000Commission’s Authority to Discipline Sullivan The tenure given a police officer “is a constitutionally protected interest requiring the opportunity for a fair hearing conducted in good faith before a full and impartial body.” Atkinson v. City of Marion, 411 N.E.2d 622, 628 (Ind.Ct.App.1980); see also Dell v. City of Tipton, 618 N.E.2d 1338, 1342 (Ind.Ct.App.1993) (referring to Ind.Code § 36-8-3-4, which outlines police disciplinary hearing and appeal procedures).

33
Sullivan v. City of Evansvillegreen
indctapp · 2000 · cited in 3 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2009–2017
2 sentences

2017“The tenure given a police officer ‘is a constitutionally protected interest requiring the opportunity for a fair hearing conducted in good faith before a full and impartial body.’” Sullivan v. City of Evansville, 728 N.E.2d 182, 187 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (quoting Atkinson v. City of Marion, 411 N.E.2d 622, 628 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000)).

2014“The tenure given a police officer ‘is a constitutionally protected interest requiring the opportunity for a fair hearing conducted in good faith before a full and impartial body.’” Sullivan v. City of Evansville, 728 N.E.2d 182, 187 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (quoting Atkinson v. City of Marion, 411 N.E.2d 622, 628 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980).

23
Wolf Lake Pub, Inc. v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Developmentgreen
indctapp · 2010 · cited in 3 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2011–2012
2 sentences

2012Still, it has been held that “‘a party to an unemployment hearing may voluntarily waive the opportunity for a fair hearing where the party received actual notice of the hearing and failed to appear at or participate in the hearing.’” Id. (quoting Art Hill, Inc., v. Review Bd. of the Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 898 N.E.2d 363, 367 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)).

2012See Wolf Lake Pub, Inc. v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 930 N.E.2d 1138, 1142 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (concluding that the appellant was not denied a reasonable opportunity to participate in a fair hearing where the appellant had actual notice of the telephonic hearing but chose to go on vacation without ensuring access to a telephone during the time of the scheduled telephonic hearing); Art Hill, Inc. v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 898 N.E.2d 363, 367-368 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (noting that a party to an unemployment hearing may voluntarily waive the opportunity for

23
Fornelli v. City of Knoxgreen
indctapp · 2009 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
1 sentence

2023We recognize that “[t]he Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-MI-246| June 28, 2023 Page 19 of 25 tenure given a police officer ‘is a constitutionally protected interest requiring the opportunity for a fair hearing conducted in good faith before a full and impartial body.” Fornelli v. City of Knox, 902 N.E.2d 889, 893 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (cleaned up), trans. denied.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

CaseCitedYears
In Re Failure to Satisfy Costs in Lawyer Disciplinary Cases of Cole green
ind · 2011
1 sentence

2019In Lush, the claimant provided a telephone number to a union hall, the union hall operator was unable to locate the claimant, and the claimant indicated that he was present at the union hall but was told that he had not received a call from the administrative law judge. 944 N.E.2d at 496 .

12019–2019
McCallip v. State green
indctapp · 1991
1 sentence

2018McCallip v. State, 580 N.E.2d 278 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991). [24] Soto claims the restitution order was unfair because the State did not present any evidence at sentencing to support its request for restitution.

12018–2018
S.S. v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development green
indctapp · 2011
1 sentence

2013See Art Hill v. Review Bd. of the Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 898 N.E.2d 363 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (party who received notice but provided wrong contact number was not denied reasonable opportunity for a fair hearing); S.S. v. Review Bd. of the Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 941 N.E.2d 550 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (party was not denied a reasonable opportunity to participate in hearing; even though she received notice and provided a phone number, she did not answer because she was confused about time zones).

12013–2013
City of Indianapolis v. Nickel green
indctapp · 1975
1 sentence

2012“Among [the] elements [of due process] are reasonable notice, an opportunity for a fair hearing, and the right to have a court of competent jurisdiction determine if the finding is supported by evidence.” Id.

12012–2012
McKEE v. HASLER neutral
ind · 1951
1 sentence

1986McKee v. Hasler (1951), 229 Ind. 487 , 98 N.E.2d 657, 668 .

11986–1986
Indianapolis Railways, Inc. v. City of Indianapolis green
ind · 1951
1 sentence

1986McKee v. Hasler (1951), 229 Ind. 487 , 98 N.E.2d 657, 668 .

11986–1986
City of Mishawaka v. Stewart green
ind · 1974
2 sentences

1980City of Mishawaka v. Stewart, (1974) 261 Ind. 670 , 310 N.E.2d 65 ; City of Hammond v. State ex rel.

1980City of Mishawaka v. Stewart, (1974) 261 Ind. 670 , 310 N.E.2d 65 ; City of Hammond v. State ex rel.

11980–1980
Warren v. Indiana Telephone Co. green
ind · 1940
2 sentences

1951Warren v. Indiana Telephone Co. (1940), 217 Ind. 93 , 26 N. E. 2d 399 ; Town of Walkerton v. N. Y.

1951Warren v. Indiana Telephone Co. (1940), 217 Ind. 93 , 26 N. E. 2d 399 ; Town of Walkerton v. N. Y.

11951–1951

Statutes the citing opinions construe

IN § Ind. Code § 22-4-17-3 (5) IN § Ind. Code § 36-8-3-4 (4) IN § Ind. Code § 22-4-17-12 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

IN 23 (1951–2023) OH 15 (1969–2022) NY 9 (1961–2012) CA 8 (1969–2017) IL 6 (1980–2024) NE 5 (1955–1993) PA 4 (1959–2020) OR 4 (1996–2026) TN 2 (2006–2008) UT 2 (2011–2012) MD 2 (1962–2007) WY 2 (2008–2014) MO 2 (1962–2013) NJ 2 (1978–2026)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check