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.
11 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1897–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Murphy v. Curtisgreen1 sentence2020See Murphy v. Curtis, 930 N.E.2d 1228, 1234 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (“[A] party who does not respond to a motion for summary judgment may be limited to the facts established by the movant’s submissions.”), trans. denied. [16] The only issue to be determined at the damages hearing was the amount of damages owed by McKeon for the breach. | 1 | 1 |
Warner Trucking, Inc. v. Carolina Casualty Insurancegreen1 sentence2012Co., 686 N.E.2d 102, 105 (Ind. 1997) (providing that an employee is not acting outside the scope of his employment merely because he violates a company rule and that the critical inquiry is not whether an employee violates an employer’s rule, but rather whether the employee is acting in the service of the employer). | 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 sentences2009Id. 2009Id. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Underwood Veneer Co. v. London Guarantee & Accident Co.
green
2 sentences1984Underwood Veneer Co. v. London Guarantee, etc., Co. (1898), 100 Wis. 378 , 75 NW. 996; Green Bros. v. Northwestern, etc., Ins. 1903Underwood Veneer Co. v. London Guarantee, etc., Co. (1898), 100 Wis. 378 , 75 N. W. 996 ; Green Bros. v. Northwestern, etc., Ins. | 2 | 1903–1984 |
Love v. Heritage House Convalescent Center
green
2 sentences1984Love, supra, at 480 . 1984Love, supra, at 480 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Mandella, Jr. P.A. v. Mariano, Jr.
green
2 sentences1962In Mandella v. Mariano, 61 R.I. 163 , 200 A. 478, 479 , "misconduct" is described as follows: "A transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behavior, willful in character, improper or wrong behavior; its synonyms are misdemeanor, misdeed, misbehavior, delinquency, impropriety, mismanagement, offense, but not negligence or carelessness. " (My emphasis.) The fact that the institution of the garnishment proceedings caused additional work on the part of the appellant-employer is not in itself an act of misconduct. 1962In Mandella v. Mariano, 61 R.I. 163 , 200 A. 478, 479 , "misconduct" is described as follows: "A transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behavior, willful in character, improper or wrong behavior; its synonyms are misdemeanor, misdeed, misbehavior, delinquency, impropriety, mismanagement, offense, but not negligence or carelessness. " (My emphasis.) The fact that the institution of the garnishment proceedings caused additional work on the part of the appellant-employer is not in itself an act of misconduct. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Southern States Fire Insurance v. Vann
green
2 sentences1916Co. v. Vann (1915), 69 Fla. 549 , 68 South. 647 : “The clause in the fire insurance policy placing a limitation on the power of any officer, agent or other representative of the company in the waiver of any provision or condition in the policy does not supersede the law making the principal liable for the negligent, wrongful or fraudulent act of its agent, or the law of equitable estoppel, and this clause of limitation may itself be waived by the company through its agent acting within the apparent scope of his authority. * * * An insurance company can not make its local agent the medium throu 1916Co. v. Vann (1915), 69 Fla. 549 , 68 South. 647 : “The clause in the fire insurance policy placing a limitation on the power of any officer, agent or other representative of the company in the waiver of any provision or condition in the policy does not supersede the law making the principal liable for the negligent, wrongful or fraudulent act of its agent, or the law of equitable estoppel, and this clause of limitation may itself be waived by the company through its agent acting within the apparent scope of his authority. * * * An insurance company can not make its local agent the medium throu | 1 | 1916–1916 |
Nichols v. Chicago & West Michigan Railway Co.
neutral
2 sentences1911Co. (1900), 125 Mich. 394, 397 , 84 N. W. 470 . 1911Co. (1900), 125 Mich. 394, 397 , 84 N. W. 470 . | 1 | 1911–1911 |
Ætna Insurance v. Sparks
neutral
1 sentence1897Co. v. Sparks, 62 Ga. 187 , was a suit brought under a policy issued by the Aetna Insurance Company to recover for the destruction of property insured thereby. | 1 | 1897–1897 |
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.