Cases

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Oct 21 2015, 9:11 am Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES Loren Jay Adams Gregory F. Zoeller Westfield, Indiana

OPINION NAJAM, Judge. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Melisa Digbie appeals the decision of the Review Board of the Department of Workforce Development (“Review Board”) in favor of Eaglecare LLC on her claim for unemployment benefits. Digbie presents a single issue for our review, namely, whether the evidence supports the finding of the Ad

OPINION BARNES, Judge. Case Summary James Broxton appeals the denial of his request for unemployment benefits by the Review Board of the Department of Workforce Development ("Review Board"). We affirm. Issues Broxton raises five issues, which we restate as:

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any May 23 2019, 9:09 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeal

OPINION BAILEY, Judge. Case Summary David Ball, et al., and Anderson Transit System, Inc. ("Anderson Transit") (collectively, "Claimants") appeal from the decision of the Review Board ("the Board") of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development ("the Department"), which denied Claimants' application for unemployment compensation

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Sep 08 2016, 10:13 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Court court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals

OPINION VAIDIK, Judge. Case Summary Alebró, LLC, appeals the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development (“Review Board”) granting its terminated employee, Jason Scheidell, unemployment benefits. Alebró argues that the Review Board erred in failing to admit documents as evidence at the hearing, used the wrong burden of proof, a

OPINION BROWN, Judge. The City of Gary, Indiana (the “City”), appeals a decision by the Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development (the “Board”) in connection with Guadalupe Franco’s application for unemployment benefits finding that Franco had been discharged but not for just cause and was entitled to unemployment benefits. The City

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jun 20 2016, 9:50 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Court court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals

938 N.E.2d 298 (2010) G.D., Appellant-Claimant, v. REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT and L.P.L., Inc., Appellees-Employer. No. 93A02-1007-EX-718. Court of Appeals of Indiana. December 10, 2010. *299 Abhishek Chaudhary, Adam Mueller, Indiana Legal Services, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.</

EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge, concurring. This case is shot through with procedural issues, some concerning subject-matter jurisdiction. Neither the parties nor the district judge said “boo” about any of them. Following that lead, my colleagues let all pass in silence. Yet jurisdictional questions should not be swept under the rug. What one can say for the parties’ assumption (and the majority’s silence) is th

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-2739 SUSAN GRASHOFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DAVID J. ADAMS, Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________

WOOD, Chief Judge. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for employers subject to the Act to discriminate on the basis of a person’s “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin....” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). For many years, the courts of appeals of this country understood the prohibition against sex discrimination to exclude discrimination on the basis of a person’s sexual orientation. The Supreme Cou

SYKES, Circuit Judge. These related cases raise dozens of claims of illegal discrimination in the promotion process used by the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department and the Indianapolis Fire Department. The complaints are sprawling and the procedural history is a bit convoluted; we have simplified the presentation of the issues. A large group of black police officers and

2 F.Supp.2d 1077 (1998) Kim ADAMS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. INDIANA BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. and Ameritech Services, Inc., Defendants. No. IP 93-0420-C M/S. United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division. January 23, 1998. *1078 *1079 *1080

Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan Syllabus Chief Justice: Justices: Elizabeth T. Clement Brian K. Zahra

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-1037 MICHELLE R. GILBANK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WOOD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District C

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-1037 MICHELLE R. GILBANK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WOOD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District C

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-1037 MICHELLE R. GILBANK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WOOD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District C

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557- 1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-12886 NEXTERA ENERGY RESOURCES, LLC vs. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES