holding that statutes may grant unequal privileges or immunities under Art. I, § 23 if, first, “the disparate treatment accorded by the legislation [is] reasonably related to inherent characteristics which distinguish the unequally treated classes.” (emphasis supplied)
How later courts described this case
- holding that statutes may grant unequal privileges or immunities under Art. I, § 23 if, first, “the disparate treatment accorded by the legislation [is] reasonably related to inherent characteristics which distinguish the unequally treated classes.” (emphasis supplied)
- explaining that past reliance on federal caselaw in construing an Indiana constitutional provision does not preclude formulation of an independent standard for analyzing state constitutional claims under the provision
- holding that 12 exemption for agricultural employers and employees from mandatory workers’ 13 compensation coverage did not violate the equal privileges and immunities guarantee 14 of the state constitution
- holding that exemption for agricultural employers and employees from mandatory workers’ compensation coverage did not violate the equal privileges and immunities guarantee of the state constitution
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled in part, on other grounds by In Re Stephens, 2007 Ind. LEXIS 410 (2007)
644 N.E.2d 72, 75 (Ind. 1994), overruled on other grounds by In re Stephens, 867 N.E.2d 148, 156
The opinion
SULLIVAN , J.,
dissenting without opinion, would deny transfer because he believes the analysis of the Court of Appeals in this case was correct.