Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 22-4-32-12 (2026)

Disputes; assignment of errors

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 12. The appellant shall attach to said transcript an assignment of errors. An assignment of errors that the decision of the liability administrative law judge 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 finding of facts.

Formerly: Acts 1947, c.208, s.3312; Acts 1951, c.295, s.23. As amended by P.L.135-1990, SEC.33.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1982–2019 · leading case: Bloomington Area Arts Council v. Dep't of Workforce Dev., Unemployment Ins. Appeals, 821 N.E.2d 843 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bloomington Area Arts Council v. Dep't of Workforce Dev., Unemployment Ins. Appeals, 821 N.E.2d 843 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “Code § 22-4-32-9(a) (1998). When the ALJ's decision is challenged as contrary to law, we are 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.”

Indianapolis Concrete, Inc. v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals of the Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 900 N.E.2d 48 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “(quoting Ind.Code § 22-4-32-12). Under this standard, basic facts are reviewed for substantial evidence, conclusions of law are reviewed for their correctness, and ultimate facts are reviewed to determine whether the ALJ's finding is a reasonable one.”

Q.D.-A., Inc. v. Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 114 N.E.3d 840 (Ind. 2019). · cites it 2× “But when challenged as contrary to law, we review the LALJ's decision for the "sufficiency of the facts found to sustain the decision" and the "sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding of facts.”

Q. D.-A., Inc. v. Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 96 N.E.3d 620 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “When the LALJ’s decision is challenged as contrary to law, we are 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 finding of facts.”

TPUSA, Inc. v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals of the Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 988 N.E.2d 284 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “2009); see Ind.Code § 22-4-32-12 (1990). Pursuant to this standard, basic facts are reviewed for substantial evidence, conclusions of law are reviewed for their correctness, and ultimate facts are reviewed to determine whether the LALJ’s finding is a reasonable one.”

Souder v. Indiana Emp. Sec. Bd., 436 N.E.2d 897 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982). “*899 Souder’s assignment of errors that the decision of the Liability Referee is contrary to law presents us with a question of the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the Liability Referee’s decision.”

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.