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 1982–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Frederick v. REV. BD. OF INDIANA EMPL. SEC. DIV.green2 sentences1988See Frederick v. Review Bd. (1983), Ind. App., 448 N.E.2d 1230 -31, trans. denied; Ryba v. Review Bd. (1982), Ind. App., 435 N.E.2d 78 , 81; Whirlpool v. Review Bd. (1982), Ind. App., 438 N.E.2d 775, 779 . 1988See Frederick v. Review Bd. (1983), Ind.App., 448 N.E.2d 1230 -31, trans. denied; Ryba v. Review Bd. (1982), Ind.App., 435 N.E.2d 78 , 81; Whirlpool v. Review Bd. (1982), Ind.App., 438 N.E.2d 775, 779 . | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Whirlpool Corp. v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division
green
2 sentences1988See Frederick v. Review Bd. (1983), Ind. App., 448 N.E.2d 1230 -31, trans. denied; Ryba v. Review Bd. (1982), Ind. App., 435 N.E.2d 78 , 81; Whirlpool v. Review Bd. (1982), Ind. App., 438 N.E.2d 775, 779 . 1988See Frederick v. Review Bd. (1983), Ind.App., 448 N.E.2d 1230 -31, trans. denied; Ryba v. Review Bd. (1982), Ind.App., 435 N.E.2d 78 , 81; Whirlpool v. Review Bd. (1982), Ind.App., 438 N.E.2d 775, 779 . | 2 | 1988–1988 |
Ryba v. REVIEW BD. OF INDIANA, ETC.
green
2 sentences1988See Frederick v. Review Bd. (1983), Ind. App., 448 N.E.2d 1230 -31, trans. denied; Ryba v. Review Bd. (1982), Ind. App., 435 N.E.2d 78 , 81; Whirlpool v. Review Bd. (1982), Ind. App., 438 N.E.2d 775, 779 . 1988See Frederick v. Review Bd. (1983), Ind.App., 448 N.E.2d 1230 -31, trans. denied; Ryba v. Review Bd. (1982), Ind.App., 435 N.E.2d 78 , 81; Whirlpool v. Review Bd. (1982), Ind.App., 438 N.E.2d 775, 779 . | 2 | 1988–1988 |
Paoloco v. Commonwealth
neutral
2 sentences1982Bd. of Rev., (1973) 10 Pa.Cmwlth. 214 , 309 A.2d 594 , 1 has held that due process does not “require that the referee tender such advice” at the unemployment compensation hearing. 1982Bd. of Rev., (1973) 10 Pa.Cmwlth. 214 , 309 A.2d 594 , 1 has held that due process does not “require that the referee tender such advice” at the unemployment compensation hearing. | 2 | 1982–1982 |
Carter v. REV. BD. OF IND. DEPT. OF EMPLOY.
green
1 sentence2014Bd. of Ind. Dep’t of Emp’t and Training Servs., 526 N.E.2d 717 , 719 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988): Generally, the evidentiary hearing conducted before a referee affords the parties to an unemployment compensation claim due process of law and the review board on appeal is not constitutionally required to provide an additional evidentiary hearing. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Lucas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division
neutral
1 sentence1987When a claimant appears without representation of counsel at an unemployment compensation hearing in Indiana, the referee is required to insure a complete presentation of the case. 640 I.A.C. 1-11-3; Lucas v. Review Board (1981), Ind.App., 416 N.E.2d 906 , 907 n. 5; DeWhirst v. Review Board (1981), Ind.App., 419 N.E.2d 150 , 151 n. 4. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Dewhirst v. REVIEW BD. OF IND. EMPLOYMENT SEC.
green
1 sentence1987When a claimant appears without representation of counsel at an unemployment compensation hearing in Indiana, the referee is required to insure a complete presentation of the case. 640 I.A.C. 1-11-3; Lucas v. Review Board (1981), Ind.App., 416 N.E.2d 906 , 907 n. 5; DeWhirst v. Review Board (1981), Ind.App., 419 N.E.2d 150 , 151 n. 4. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Reece v. Review Board of the Employment Security Division
green
1 sentence1982Div., (1977) 172 Inf App. 503, 360 N.E.2d 1262 , that the ten-day period defined in Ind. Code § 22-4-17-2 (e) (Burns 1974), which governed notices of appeals from a deputy’s determination of an unemployment compensation claim, did not begin to run until receipt of the deputy’s decision. 2 Likewise, in O’Donoghue v. Review Board of Ind. Emp. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
O'Donoghue v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division
green
1 sentence1982Div., (1980) Ind.App., 406 N.E.2d 1267 , the Court of Appeals held that the fifteen-day period defined in Ind. Code § 22-4-17-3 (Burns 1974), which governs notices of appeal from a referee’s resolution of an unemployment compensation claim, does not begin to run until actual notification of the decision. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.