Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
  • D
  • Dove v. Rose Acre Farms, Inc.Dove v. Rose Acre Farms, Inc.
From our private database of 16,800+ case briefs...

Dove v. Rose Acre Farms, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Indiana, First District
434 N.E.2d 931 (1982)



Dove (plaintiff) was employed by Rose Acre Farms, Inc. (Rose Acre) (defendant), a construction company. Rose Acre’s president, Rust, created an incentive program that involved paying bonuses to employees for certain positive acts, and assessing penalties against employees for failing to complete basic job expectations. The purpose of the bonus program and penalties was to discourage absenteeism and tardiness by employees, and to promote motivation and dependability. Under the terms of the bonus program, if an employee was late for one minute or missed one day of work, he would forfeit the opportunity to earn a bonus. In June 1979, Rust gave Dove and other construction workers the opportunities to earn a bonus of $6,000 each if they completed a certain construction project within 12 weeks. The bonus agreement was later modified to offer Dove $5,000 if he completed the project in 10 weeks, to accommodate Dove’s school schedule. Dove was aware that this arrangement required him to work 12 hours per day, five days per week. Dove was also aware that if he missed any work or was tardy one day, he would forfeit the opportunity for the bonus. Dove completed his duties under the arrangement for nine weeks. During the tenth week, Dove came down with strep throat and a high fever. Dove told Rust he could not work. Rust offered him the opportunity to stay there and lie on a couch, or make up missed days on the weekend. Dove declined and missed two days of work during the tenth week of the bonus program. Rust refused Dove the bonus because Dove missed two days of work. Dove brought suit against Rose Acre in Indiana state court, arguing that he substantially performed the bonus agreement and thus should be awarded the full bonus. The trial court entered judgment for Rose Acre, and Dove appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Neal, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 449,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 449,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,800 briefs, keyed to 224 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial