Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 22-3-2-1 (2026)
Repealed
✓ current as of May 2026
Formerly: Acts 1929, c.172, s.1. As amended by P.L.144-1986, SEC.22. Repealed by P.L.28-1988, SEC.118.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1977–1993 · leading case: Baker v. Am. States Ins., 428 N.E.2d 1342 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981).
Baker v. Am. States Ins., 428 N.E.2d 1342 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981). “NOTES [1] Ind. Code 22-3-2-1 through 22-3-6-3.”
Junior S. Jackson, Cross-Appellant v. Consol. Rail Corp., Cross-Appellee, 717 F.2d 1045 (7th Cir. 1984). “Approximately one month later, she was discharged without any reason being given.”
Vantine v. Elkhart Brass Mfg. Co., 572 F. Supp. 636 (N.D. Ind. 1983). “Ind.Code § 22-3-2-1 et seq. Accordingly, Kenneth Vantine and the defendants entered into a so-called Form 12 Agreement as to Compensation on February 7, 1981.”
Morton Ex Rel. Morton v. Kemmerer (In Re Kemmerer), 156 B.R. 806 (Bankr. S.D. Ind. 1993). “, that Timothy was required to operate the equipment without proper supervision, instruction or knowledge, that Harold was obligated to but failed to provide Workers’ Compensation Insurance or self-insurance pursuant to Ind.Code 22-3-2-1 et seq., and that the Plaintiffs’…”
K-Mart Corp. v. Novak, 521 N.E.2d 1346 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988). “supersedes and prohibits recovery under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Indiana Code sections 22-3-2-1 et seq.? 3. Whether the decision of Portman v.”
Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Murphy, 511 N.E.2d 515 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987). “Rather, it was premised upon Sears’s liability to Murphy under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, Ind.Code 22-3-2-1 et seq. IC 22-3-3-4 provides: .”
Haskin v. Sullivan, 550 N.E.2d 799 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990). “CODE § 22-3-2-1 et seq. . The Hamilton County case went to a jury and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the other two defendants on August 23, 1988.”
Indiana & Michigan Elec. Co. v. Miller, 363 N.E.2d 1053 (Ind. Ct. App. 1977). “cases are remanded to the Industrial Board for further proceédings not inconsistent with the views expressed herein.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.