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.
7 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Giovanoni v. INDIANA DEPT. OF WRKFRC. DEVT.green2 sentences2011We were concerned only with a discharge for the violation of an employer’s attendance rule, id. at 909, not with a discharge based upon an employee’s breach of duty. 2011Bd. of Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 927 N.E.2d 906, 909 (Ind.2010) (citing Jeffboat, Inc. v. Rev. | 2 | 2 |
In Re Interest of LVgreen2 sentences2000In re Interest of L.V., 240 Neb. 404 , 482 N.W.2d 250, 258-59 (1992). 2000In re Interest of L.V., 240 Neb. 404 , 482 N.W.2d 250, 258-59 (1992). | 2 | 2 |
Giovanoni v. REVIEW BD. IN DEPT. WORKFORCEgreen2 sentences2009Thus, we agree with Judge Mathias that termination for unsatisfactory attendance must be analyzed solely under Section (d)(8). [1] Giovanoni v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev., 900 N.E.2d 437, 443-44 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (emphasis original); see also Ind.Code § 22-4-1-1 (stating that the purpose of the Unemployment Compensation Act is to "provide for payment of benefits to persons unemployed through no fault of their own ") (emphasis added). 2009Thus, we agree with Judge Mathias that termination for unsatisfactory attendance must be analyzed solely under Section (d)(3).[ [1] ] Giovanoni v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev., 900 N.E.2d 437, 443-44 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (emphasis original); see also Ind.Code § 22-4-1-1 (stating that the purpose of the Unemployment Compensation Act is to "provide for payment of benefits to persons unemployed through no fault of their own ") (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Lehr v. Robertsongreen2 sentences2000See Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 , 103 S.Ct. 2985 , 77 L.Ed.2d 614 (1983). [3] The Supreme Court of Nebraska has provided the following guidance: In deciding whether to allow a parent's attendance at a hearing to terminate parental rights, notwithstanding the parent's incarceration or other confinement, a court may consider the delay resulting from prospective parental attendance, the need for disposition of the proceeding within the immediate future, the elapsed time during which the proceeding has been pending before the juvenile court, the expense to the State if the State will be requir 2000See Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 , 103 S.Ct. 2985 , 77 L.Ed.2d 614 (1983). [3] The Supreme Court of Nebraska has provided the following guidance: In deciding whether to allow a parent's attendance at a hearing to terminate parental rights, notwithstanding the parent's incarceration or other confinement, a court may consider the delay resulting from prospective parental attendance, the need for disposition of the proceeding within the immediate future, the elapsed time during which the proceeding has been pending before the juvenile court, the expense to the State if the State will be requir | 1 | 1 |
Vines v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1980See Silver v. Castle Memorial Hospital (1972) 53 Haw. 475 , 497 P.2d 564 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1048 , 93 S.Ct. 517 , 34 L.Ed.2d 500 , rehearing denied, (1973) 409 U.S. 1131 , 93 S.Ct. 936 , 35 L.Ed.2d 264 . | 1 | 1 |
Corey v. Attorney General of the United Statesgreen1 sentence1980See Silver v. Castle Memorial Hospital (1972) 53 Haw. 475 , 497 P.2d 564 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1048 , 93 S.Ct. 517 , 34 L.Ed.2d 500 , rehearing denied, (1973) 409 U.S. 1131 , 93 S.Ct. 936 , 35 L.Ed.2d 264 . | 1 | 1 |
Silver v. Castle Memorial Hospitalgreen1 sentence1980See Silver v. Castle Memorial Hospital (1972) 53 Haw. 475 , 497 P.2d 564 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1048 , 93 S.Ct. 517 , 34 L.Ed.2d 500 , rehearing denied, (1973) 409 U.S. 1131 , 93 S.Ct. 936 , 35 L.Ed.2d 264 . | 1 | 1 |
First National Bank of Fairbanks v. Campgreen1 sentence1980See Silver v. Castle Memorial Hospital (1972) 53 Haw. 475 , 497 P.2d 564 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1048 , 93 S.Ct. 517 , 34 L.Ed.2d 500 , rehearing denied, (1973) 409 U.S. 1131 , 93 S.Ct. 936 , 35 L.Ed.2d 264 . | 1 | 1 |
Rhodes v. Nebraskagreen1 sentence1980See Silver v. Castle Memorial Hospital (1972) 53 Haw. 475 , 497 P.2d 564 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1048 , 93 S.Ct. 517 , 34 L.Ed.2d 500 , rehearing denied, (1973) 409 U.S. 1131 , 93 S.Ct. 936 , 35 L.Ed.2d 264 . | 1 | 1 |
Maryland People's Party v. Mandelgreen1 sentence1980See Silver v. Castle Memorial Hospital (1972) 53 Haw. 475 , 497 P.2d 564 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1048 , 93 S.Ct. 517 , 34 L.Ed.2d 500 , rehearing denied, (1973) 409 U.S. 1131 , 93 S.Ct. 936 , 35 L.Ed.2d 264 . | 1 | 1 |
Silver v. Castle Memorial Hospitalgreen2 sentences1980See Silver v. Castle Memorial Hospital (1972) 53 Haw. 475 , 497 P.2d 564 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1048 , 93 S.Ct. 517 , 34 L.Ed.2d 500 , rehearing denied, (1973) 409 U.S. 1131 , 93 S.Ct. 936 , 35 L.Ed.2d 264 . 1980See Silver v. Castle Memorial Hospital (1972) 53 Haw. 475 , 497 P.2d 564 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1048 , 93 S.Ct. 517 , 34 L.Ed.2d 500 , rehearing denied, (1973) 409 U.S. 1131 , 93 S.Ct. 936 , 35 L.Ed.2d 264 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
White v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division
green
2 sentences1983In view of the expressed legislative intent that the Employment Security Act was designed to benefit persons unemployed through no fault of their own, L.C. 22-4-1-1 (Burns Code Ed.1974), see also White v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division (2d Dist. 1972) 151 Ind.App. 426 , 280 N.E.2d 64, 67 , we concur with the Board's assessment of the employer's attendance rule. 1983In view of the expressed legislative intent that the Employment Security Act was designed to benefit persons unemployed through no fault of their own, L.C. 22-4-1-1 (Burns Code Ed.1974), see also White v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division (2d Dist. 1972) 151 Ind.App. 426 , 280 N.E.2d 64, 67 , we concur with the Board's assessment of the employer's attendance rule. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.