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.
8 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wior v. Anchor Industries, Inc.green2 sentences2020“Indiana follows the doctrine of employment at will, under which employment may be terminated by either party at will, with or without reason.” Wior v. Anchor Indus., Inc., 669 N.E.2d 172, 175 (Ind. 1996). 2020“Indiana follows the doctrine of employment at will, under which employment may be terminated by either party at will, with or without reason.” Wior v. Anchor Indus., Inc., 669 N.E.2d 172, 175 (Ind. 1996). | 2 | 2 |
McGarrity v. Berlin Metals, Inc.green1 sentence2019See, e.g., McGarrity v. Berlin Metals, 774 N.E.2d 71 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (holding retaliatory discharge claim could stand where employee alleged he was fired for refusing to file a fraudulent tax return), trans. denied; Call v. Scott Brass, Inc., 553 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (holding that employee could bring a retaliatory discharge claim where she claimed her former employer dismissed her because she complied with a summons for jury duty), trans. denied. warrant expansion of the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine. | 1 | 1 |
McClanahan v. Remington Freight Lines, Inc.green1 sentence2006For a brief history of the development of the modern doctrine of at-will employment, see McClanahan v. Remington Freight Lines, Inc., 517 N.E.2d 390, 393-94 (Ind. 1988). 5 To establish a claim of defamation, a plaintiff must prove the existence of “a communication with defamatory imputation, malice, publication, and damages.” Davidson v. Perron, 716 N.E.2d 29, 37 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). | 1 | 1 |
Davidson v. Perrongreen1 sentence2006For a brief history of the development of the modern doctrine of at-will employment, see McClanahan v. Remington Freight Lines, Inc., 517 N.E.2d 390, 393-94 (Ind. 1988). 5 To establish a claim of defamation, a plaintiff must prove the existence of “a communication with defamatory imputation, malice, publication, and damages.” Davidson v. Perron, 716 N.E.2d 29, 37 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Call v. Scott Brass, Inc.
green
1 sentence2019See, e.g., McGarrity v. Berlin Metals, 774 N.E.2d 71 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (holding retaliatory discharge claim could stand where employee alleged he was fired for refusing to file a fraudulent tax return), trans. denied; Call v. Scott Brass, Inc., 553 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (holding that employee could bring a retaliatory discharge claim where she claimed her former employer dismissed her because she complied with a summons for jury duty), trans. denied. warrant expansion of the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Orr v. Westminster Village North, Inc.
green
1 sentence2019Nevertheless, in Indiana, the presumption of at-will employment is strong, and this Court is disinclined to adopt broad and ill-defined exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine. [ ] Orr, 689 N.E.2d at 717 -18 . [17] Even though the presumption of at-will employment in Indiana is strong, our Supreme Court has acknowledged certain exceptions to the at-will employment presumption. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Baker v. Tremco Inc.
green
2 sentences2019Baker, 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. 2019Baker, 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 |
Griffin v. Elkhart General Hospital, Inc.
green
2 sentences2007Hosp., Inc., 585 N.E.2d 723 (Ind.Ct.App.1992), supports the opposite result, i.e., that the stated term is too indefinite to take this case outside of the at-will employment doctrine. 2007Hosp., Inc., 585 N.E.2d 723 (Ind.Ct.App.1992), supports the opposite result, i.e., that the stated term is too indefinite to take this case outside of the at-will employment doctrine. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Campbell v. Eli Lilly & Co.
green
1 sentence1986The Indiana court has refused to recognize further exceptions to the employment at-will doctrine based on promissory estoppel, see Pepsi-Cola General Bottlers, Inc. v. Woods (1982), Ind.App., 440 N.E.2d 696 , or based on general public policy, see Campbell v. Eli Lilly & Company (1980), Ind.App., 413 N.E.2d 1054 . 2 , The Frampton court created an exception to the at-will employment doctrine by providing a cause of action for discharge from an at-will position in retaliation for the employee's exercise of a statutory or constitutional right. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas Company
green
2 sentences1986In Frampton, our supreme court stated that the plaintiff, whose cause of action came within the exception to the at-will employment doctrine, was "entitled to be fully compensated in damages." 297 N.E.2d at 428 . 1986In Frampton, our supreme court stated that the plaintiff, whose cause of action came within the exception to the at-will employment doctrine, was "entitled to be fully compensated in damages." 297 N.E.2d at 428 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Martin v. Platt
green
2 sentences1986Campbell v. Eli Lilly and Company, supra, (no ecause of action for at will employee who reported misconduct of superiors and questioned safety of some drugs manufactured by employer) See also Martin v. Platt (1979) 179 Ind.App., 688 , 386 N.E.2d 1026 (no public policy exception for employee who reported kick backs received by superior). 1986Campbell v. Eli Lilly and Company, supra, (no ecause of action for at will employee who reported misconduct of superiors and questioned safety of some drugs manufactured by employer) See also Martin v. Platt (1979) 179 Ind.App., 688 , 386 N.E.2d 1026 (no public policy exception for employee who reported kick backs received by superior). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Pepsi-Cola General Bottlers, Inc. v. Woods
green
1 sentence1986The Indiana court has refused to recognize further exceptions to the employment at-will doctrine based on promissory estoppel, see Pepsi-Cola General Bottlers, Inc. v. Woods (1982), Ind.App., 440 N.E.2d 696 , or based on general public policy, see Campbell v. Eli Lilly & Company (1980), Ind.App., 413 N.E.2d 1054 . 2 , The Frampton court created an exception to the at-will employment doctrine by providing a cause of action for discharge from an at-will position in retaliation for the employee's exercise of a statutory or constitutional right. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.