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.
12 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jarboe v. Landmark Community Newspapers of Indiana, Inc.green2 sentences1997To do so effectively, the employee must plead or assert the doctrine with particularity. [6] The employee must assert and demonstrate that the employer made a promise to the employee; that the employee relied on that promise to his detriment; and that the promise otherwise fits within the Restatement test for promissory estoppel. [7] See Jarboe v. Landmark Community Newspapers of Indiana, Inc., 644 N.E.2d 118, 121 (Ind.1995)(adopting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90(1) (1981)). [8] In their opposition to Westminster's transfer petition before this Court, plaintiffs do not rely on the pub 1997To do so effectively, the employee must plead or assert the doctrine with particularity. 6 The employee must assert and demonstrate that the employer made a promise to the employee; that the employee relied on that promise to his detriment; and that the promise otherwise fits within the Restatement test for promissory estoppel. 7 See Jarboe v. Landmark Community Newspapers of Indiana, Inc., 644 N.E.2d 118, 121 (Ind.l995)(adopting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90(1) (1981)). 8 In their opposition to Westminster’s transfer petition before this Court, plaintiffs do not rely on the public po | 2 | 2 |
Lafayette v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Our supreme court has recognized that an employee may invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel by “pleading the doctrine with particularity, demonstrating that the employer made a promise to the employee, the employee relied on the promise to his detriment, and the promise otherwise fits within the Restatement test for promissory estoppel.” Peru School Corp., 969 N.E.2d at 133 -34 (citing Baker v. Tremco, Inc., 917 N.E.2d 660, 654 (Ind.2009)). | 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
2 sentences2020“Third, this Court has recognized that an employee may invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel.” Id. (citing Orr, 689 N.E.2d at 718 ). 2020“Third, this Court has recognized that an employee may invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel.” Id. (citing Orr, 689 N.E.2d at 718 ). | 6 | 2012–2020 |
Orr v. Westminster Village North, Inc.
green
2 sentences2020“Third, this Court has recognized that an employee may invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel.” Id. (citing Orr, 689 N.E.2d at 718 ). 2020“Third, this Court has recognized that an employee may invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel.” Id. (citing Orr, 689 N.E.2d at 718 ). | 5 | 1999–2020 |
Wior v. Anchor Industries, Inc.
green
2 sentences2020Both parties agree that Perkins’s case should be analyzed under the public policy exception. “[W]e have recognized a public policy exception to the doctrine if a clear statutory expression of a right or a duty is contravened.” Baker, 917 N.E.2d at 654 (citing Wior, 669 N.E.2d at 177 n.5). 2020Both parties agree that Perkins’s case should be analyzed under the public policy exception. “[W]e have recognized a public policy exception to the doctrine if a clear statutory expression of a right or a duty is contravened.” Baker, 917 N.E.2d at 654 (citing Wior, 669 N.E.2d at 177 n.5). | 2 | 2020–2020 |
PERU SCHOOL CORP. v. Grant
green
1 sentence2015Our supreme court has recognized that an employee may invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel by “pleading the doctrine with particularity, demonstrating that the employer made a promise to the employee, the employee relied on the promise to his detriment, and the promise otherwise fits within the Restatement test for promissory estoppel.” Peru School Corp., 969 N.E.2d at 133 -34 (citing Baker v. Tremco, Inc., 917 N.E.2d 660, 654 (Ind.2009)). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas Company
green
2 sentences1997For example, we have invoked the public policy exception when an employee was discharged for filing a workmen’s compensation claim, Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas Co., 260 Ind. 249 , 297 N.E.2d 425 (1973), or when an employee was discharged for refusing to commit an illegal act, McClanahan v. Remington Freight Lines, Inc., supra. Third, this Court has recognized that, in certain instances, an employee may invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel. 1997For example, we have invoked the public policy exception when an employee was discharged for filing a workmen’s compensation claim, Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas Co., 260 Ind. 249 , 297 N.E.2d 425 (1973), or when an employee was discharged for refusing to commit an illegal act, McClanahan v. Remington Freight Lines, Inc., supra. Third, this Court has recognized that, in certain instances, an employee may invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel. | 1 | 1997–1997 |