Legal Opinion · Dissent

Kokomo Center Township Consolidated School Corp. v. McQueary

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided July 9, 1997No. 34A02-9608-CV-514Published

1DissentStaton, Judge

I dissent from the Majority Opinion and would affirm the trial court for the following reasons:

1. Here we are dealing with a written employment contract which is in contrast with the employee at will eases cited by the Majority.

2. The Majority defines and interprets the slang phrase “put Wright under” as an obvious threat to kill with total disregard of the circumstances under which the slang expression was used. As Justice Holmes emphasized in Towne v. Eisner: “A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Towne v. EisnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
  2. Lamar v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  3. Lámar v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  4. Yoldash v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security DivisionIndiana Court of Appeals · 1982
  5. Reynolds v. DanielsCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1981

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API