Sec. 12. (a) Any decision of the review board shall
be conclusive and binding as to all questions of fact. Either party to the
dispute or the commissioner may, within thirty (30) days after notice
of intention to appeal as provided in this section, appeal the decision
to the court of appeals of Indiana for errors of law under the same terms
and conditions as govern appeals in ordinary civil actions.
(b) In every appeal the review board shall be made a party appellee,
and the review board shall, at the written request of the appellant and
after payment of the uniform average fee required in subsection (c) is
made, prepare a transcript of all the proceedings had before the
administrative law judge and review board, which shall contain a
transcript of all the testimony, together with all objections and rulings
thereon, documents and papers introduced into evidence or offered as
evidence, and all rulings as to their admission into evidence. The
transcript shall be certified by the chairman of the review board and
shall constitute the record upon appeal.
(c) All expenses incurred in the preparation of the transcript shall
be charged to the appellant. The fee for a transcript shall be the actual
cost of preparation that may include the cost of materials, reproduction,
postage, handling, and hours of service rendered by the preparer. The
commissioner shall establish a uniform average fee to be paid by the
appellant before the transcript is prepared. After the transcript is
completed, the actual cost shall be determined and the appellant shall
either pay the amount remaining above the uniform average fee or be
refunded the amount the uniform average fee exceeds the actual cost
of preparation. The commissioner shall establish the procedure by
which transcript fees are determined and paid.
(d) Notwithstanding subsections (b) and (c), the appellant may
request that a transcript of all proceedings had before the
administrative law judge and review board be prepared at no cost to the
appellant by filing with the review board, under oath and in writing, a
statement:
(1) declaring that the appellant is unable to pay for the preparation
of the transcript because of the appellant's poverty;
(2) setting forth the facts that render the appellant unable to pay
for the preparation of the transcript; and
(3) declaring that the appellant is entitled to redress on appeal.
Upon finding that the appellant is unable to pay for the preparation of
the transcript because of the appellant's poverty, the review board shall
prepare a transcript at no cost to the appellant.
(e) The review board may, upon its own motion, or at the request of
either party upon a showing of sufficient reason, extend the limit within
which the appeal shall be taken, not to exceed fifteen (15) days. In
every case in which an extension is granted, the extension shall appear
in the record of the proceeding filed in the court of appeals.
(f) The appellant shall attach to the transcript an assignment of
errors. An assignment of errors that the decision of the review board is
contrary to law shall be sufficient to present both the sufficiency of the
facts found to sustain the decision and the sufficiency of the evidence
to sustain the findings of facts. In any appeal under this section, no
bond shall be required for entering the appeal.
(g) All appeals shall be considered as submitted upon the date filed
in the court of appeals, shall be advanced upon the docket of the court,
and shall be determined without delay in the order of priority. Upon the
final determination of the appeal, the review board shall enter an order
in accordance with the determination, and the decision shall be final.
The court of appeals may in any appeal remand the proceeding to the
review board for the taking of additional evidence, setting time limits
therefor, and ordering the additional evidence to be certified by the
review board to the court of appeals to be used in the determination of
the cause.
(h) Any finding of fact, judgment, conclusion, or final order made
by a person with the authority to make findings of fact or law in an
action or proceeding under this article is not conclusive or binding and
shall not be used as evidence in a separate or subsequent action or
proceeding between an individual and the individual's present or prior
employer in an action or proceeding brought before an arbitrator, a
court, or a judge of this state or the United States regardless of whether
the prior action was between the same or related parties or involved the
same facts.
Formerly: Acts 1947, c.208, s.1812; Acts 1957, c.299, s.6. As
amended by P.L.34-1985, SEC.9; P.L.20-1986, SEC.11; P.L.18-1987,
SEC.50; P.L.135-1990, SEC.14; P.L.21-1995, SEC.90.
Notes of Decisions
McClain v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 693 N.E.2d 1314 (Ind. 1998).
· cites it 4× “1 Indiana Code § 22-4-17-12© provides that when the Board’s decision is challenged as contrary to law, the reviewing court is limited to a two part inquiry into: (1) “the sufficiency of the facts found to sustain the decision”; and (2) “the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain…”
S.S. LLC v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 953 N.E.2d 597 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 6× “" Ind.Code § 22-4-17-12(a). When the Board's decision is challenged as contrary to law, the reviewing court is limited to a two-part inquiry into the "sufficiency of the facts found to sustain the decision" and the "sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of facts.”
Quakenbush v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 891 N.E.2d 1051 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 4× “Ind.Code § 22-4-17-12(a). Review Board decisions may, however, be challenged as contrary to law, in which case the reviewing court examines the sufficiency of the facts found to sustain the decision and the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of facts.”
Coleman v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 905 N.E.2d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “Ind. Code § 22-4-17-12 (a). Review Board decisions may be challenged as contrary to law, in which case we examine the sufficiency of the facts found to sustain the decision and the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of facts.”
McHugh v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 842 N.E.2d 436 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 4× “" Ind. Code § 22-4-17-12 (a) (2005). When the decision is challenged as contrary to law, the reviewing court is limited to a two-part inquiry into the "sufficiency of the facts found to sustain the decision" and the "sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of facts.”
J.M. v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Dev. & T.C., 975 N.E.2d 1283 (Ind. 2012).
· cites it 3× “Ind.Code § 22-4-17-12(a) (2007). When the decision of the Review Board is challenged, an appellate court makes a two-part inquiry into (1) “the sufficiency of the facts found to sustain the decision” and (2)“the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of fact.”
Now Courier, Inc. v. Review Bd. of Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 871 N.E.2d 384 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 4× “2006) (citing Ind. Code § 22-4-17-12 (f)). Accordingly, we review “(1) determinations of specific or basic underlying facts; (2) conclusions or inferences from those facts, or determinations of ultimate facts; and (3) conclusions of law.”
P.K.E. v. Review Bd. of Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 942 N.E.2d 125 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 4× “In this analysis, we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses, and we consider only the evidence most favorable to the Review Board’s findings, and we will reverse only if there is no substantial evidence to support the Board’s findings.”
Stanrail Corp. v. Review Bd. of the Dep't of Workforce Dev., 735 N.E.2d 1197 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 4× “" Ind.Code § 22-4-17-12(a). When the Board's decision is challenged as contrary to law, the reviewing court is limited to a two-part inquiry into the "sufficiency of the facts found to sustain the decision" and the "sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of facts.”
T.B. v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Deptartment of Workforce Dev. & A.R., 980 N.E.2d 341 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 8× “Ind. Code § 22-4-17-12 (a). When the Review Board’s decision is challenged as being contrary to law, our review is limited to a two-part inquiry into: “(1) the sufficiency of the facts found to sustain the decision; and (2) the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings…”
S.S. v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 941 N.E.2d 550 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 4× “" Ind.Code § 22-4-17-12(a). Therefore we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses, we consider only the evidence most favorable to the Review Board's findings of basic fact, and we accept those findings if they are supported by substantial evidence.”
— Ind. Code § 22-4-17-12(8) — 2 cases
McHugh v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 842 N.E.2d 436 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
“" Ind. Code § 22-4-17-12 (a) (2005). When the decision is challenged as contrary to law, the reviewing court is limited to a two-part inquiry into the "sufficiency of the facts found to sustain the decision" and the "sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of facts.”
— Ind. Code § 22-4-17-12(B) — 2 cases
Now Courier, Inc. v. Review Bd. of Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 871 N.E.2d 384 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
“2006) (citing Ind. Code § 22-4-17-12 (f)). Accordingly, we review “(1) determinations of specific or basic underlying facts; (2) conclusions or inferences from those facts, or determinations of ultimate facts; and (3) conclusions of law.”
— Ind. Code § 22-4-17-12(F) — 2 cases
— Ind. Code § 22-4-17-12(a) — 50 cases
McClain v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 693 N.E.2d 1314 (Ind. 1998).
“1 Indiana Code § 22-4-17-12© provides that when the Board’s decision is challenged as contrary to law, the reviewing court is limited to a two part inquiry into: (1) “the sufficiency of the facts found to sustain the decision”; and (2) “the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain…”
S.S. LLC v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 953 N.E.2d 597 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
“" Ind.Code § 22-4-17-12(a). When the Board's decision is challenged as contrary to law, the reviewing court is limited to a two-part inquiry into the "sufficiency of the facts found to sustain the decision" and the "sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of facts.”
S.S. v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 941 N.E.2d 550 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
“" Ind.Code § 22-4-17-12(a). Therefore we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses, we consider only the evidence most favorable to the Review Board's findings of basic fact, and we accept those findings if they are supported by substantial evidence.”
J.M. v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Dev. & T.C., 975 N.E.2d 1283 (Ind. 2012).
“Ind.Code § 22-4-17-12(a) (2007). When the decision of the Review Board is challenged, an appellate court makes a two-part inquiry into (1) “the sufficiency of the facts found to sustain the decision” and (2)“the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of fact.”
— Ind. Code § 22-4-17-12(b) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 22-4-17-12(f) — 47 cases
Quakenbush v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 891 N.E.2d 1051 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
“Ind.Code § 22-4-17-12(a). Review Board decisions may, however, be challenged as contrary to law, in which case the reviewing court examines the sufficiency of the facts found to sustain the decision and the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of facts.”
Coleman v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 905 N.E.2d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
“Ind. Code § 22-4-17-12 (a). Review Board decisions may be challenged as contrary to law, in which case we examine the sufficiency of the facts found to sustain the decision and the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of facts.”
P.K.E. v. Review Bd. of Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 942 N.E.2d 125 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
“In this analysis, we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses, and we consider only the evidence most favorable to the Review Board’s findings, and we will reverse only if there is no substantial evidence to support the Board’s findings.”
Stanrail Corp. v. Review Bd. of the Dep't of Workforce Dev., 735 N.E.2d 1197 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
“" Ind.Code § 22-4-17-12(a). When the Board's decision is challenged as contrary to law, the reviewing court is limited to a two-part inquiry into the "sufficiency of the facts found to sustain the decision" and the "sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of facts.”
— Ind. Code § 22-4-17-12(h) — 3 cases
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.