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.
15 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 2006–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Art Hill, Inc. v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Developmentgreen2 sentences2020We 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). | 6 | 13 |
Wolf Lake Pub, Inc. v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Developmentgreen2 sentences2012Still, 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 | 2 | 4 |
Bonaventura v. Leachgreen1 sentence2020The County contends that Goering’s letter to DWD in response to the notice that E.S. had filed an unemployment claim served as notice to DWD that Goering represented the County. [12] However, “[t]he obligation to serve a party’s attorney arises with the entry of an appearance by the attorney.” Bonaventura v. Leach, 670 N.E.2d 123, 125 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), 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 |
|---|---|---|
Baker v. Tremco Inc.
green
1 sentence2019Baker, 917 N.E.2d at 656 . [18] Like the employee’s honest belief in Baker, Perkins’s honest belief that he was subpoenaed to testify at an unemployment hearing is “not on par with the rights and obligations” that have been recognized as warranting an exception to the at-will employment doctrine. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
S.S. v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development
green
1 sentence2013See 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). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Lawson v. Howmet Aluminum Corp.
green
2 sentences2006Similarly, Lawson v. Howmet Aluminum Corp., 449 N.E.2d 1172 (Ind.Ct.App. 1983), involved a defamation action arising out of statements an employer made to the Department in response to an unemployment claim. 2006Similarly, Lawson v. Howmet Aluminum Corp., 449 N.E.2d 1172 (Ind.Ct.App.1983), involved a defamation action arising out of statements an employer made to the Department in response to an unemployment claim. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.