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 1992–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
McClanahan v. Remington Freight Lines, Inc.green2 sentences2019Appellant’s App., Vol. II at 62. [10] In McClanahan v. Remington Freight Lines, our supreme court recognized an exception to the employment at will doctrine when it upheld a wrongful discharge claim for damages by a truck driver who alleged he was fired for refusing to violate Illinois state weight limits. 517 N.E.2d 390, 393 (Ind. 1988). 2006And McClanahan v. Remington Freight Lines, lnc., 517 N.E.2d 390, 393 (Ind.1988), upheld a wrongful discharge claim for damages by a truck driver who alleged he was fired for refusing to violate Illinois state weight limits. | 4 | 4 |
Ewing v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF PULASKI MEM.green1 sentence2015Ewing v. Bd. of Truétees of Pulaski Mem’l Hosp., 486 N.E.2d 1094, 1098 (Ind.Ct.App.1985), reh’g-denied, trans. denied. [19] If an employment, contract for an, ascertainable term of employment does not exist, an exception to the employment-at-will. doctrine may apply. | 1 | 1 |
Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas Companygreen2 sentences1996Exactly the same principle that prohibits an employer from firing an employee for filing a worker's compensation claim, Frampton v. Central Ind. Gas Co., 260 Ind. 249, 253 , 297 N.E.2d 425, 428 (1973), should prohibit an employer from firing an employee who refuses to fire a subordinate employee for filing a worker's compensation claim. 1996Exactly the same principle that prohibits an employer from firing an employee for filing a worker's compensation claim, Frampton v. Central Ind. Gas Co., 260 Ind. 249, 253 , 297 N.E.2d 425, 428 (1973), should prohibit an employer from firing an employee who refuses to fire a subordinate employee for filing a worker's compensation claim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Holtz v. Bd. of Com'rs of Elkhart County
green
1 sentence2006Holtz, *495 560 N.E.2d at 647-48 . 4 D. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Jarboe v. Landmark Community Newspapers of Indiana Inc.
green
1 sentence1994The court characterized its opinion as deciding whether a person with an unenforceable oral employment contract "may pursue a wrongful discharge claim under the doctrine of promissory estoppel." Id. at 1292 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Serstel Corp. v. Gibbs
green
1 sentence1992An argument that a claimant may bypass or waive a mandatory grievance and arbitration process by filing a civil action was rejected in Serstel Corporation v. Gibbs (1981) 3d Dist.Ind.App., 417 N.E.2d 372 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.