Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
20 Arkansas opinions name it 3 courts 1983–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arkansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Oxfordgreen2 sentences1997(Emphasis added.) The court has further recognized a limited public-policy exception to the at-will doctrine and has held “that an at-will employee has a cause of action for wrongful discharge if he or she is fired in violation of a well-established public policy of the state.” Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Oxford, 294 Ark. 239, 249 , 743 S.W.2d 380, 385 (1988). 1997(Emphasis added.) The court has further recognized a limited public-policy exception to the at-will doctrine and has held “that an at-will employee has a cause of action for wrongful discharge if he or she is fired in violation of a well-established public policy of the state.” Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Oxford, 294 Ark. 239, 249 , 743 S.W.2d 380, 385 (1988). | 4 | 7 |
Ball v. Arkansas Department of Community Punishmentgreen2 sentences2007Ball v. Arkansas Dep’t of Community Punishment, 340 Ark. 424 , 10 S.W.3d 873 (2000). 2007Ball v. Arkansas Dep’t of Community Punishment, 340 Ark. 424 , 10 S.W.3d 873 (2000). | 3 | 4 |
Gladden v. Arkansas Children's Hospitalgreen2 sentences2001Transport manual lists certain conduct that wifi result in termination, but nothing in the manual suggests that the fist is intended to be exhaustive; thus, it would not only be unreasonable but absurd to interpret the manual as implicitly foreclosing termination for criminal acts and wrongful conduct beyond the seven violations listed in the manual); Gladden v. Arkansas Children’s Hosp., 292 Ark. 130 , 728 S.W.2d 501 (1987) (holding that without a provision stating that an employee can be terminated only for cause, the at-will doctrine permitted termination in the absence of any reason at all 2001Transport manual lists certain conduct that wifi result in termination, but nothing in the manual suggests that the fist is intended to be exhaustive; thus, it would not only be unreasonable but absurd to interpret the manual as implicitly foreclosing termination for criminal acts and wrongful conduct beyond the seven violations listed in the manual); Gladden v. Arkansas Children’s Hosp., 292 Ark. 130 , 728 S.W.2d 501 (1987) (holding that without a provision stating that an employee can be terminated only for cause, the at-will doctrine permitted termination in the absence of any reason at all | 1 | 6 |
Crain Industries, Inc. v. Cassgreen2 sentences2021This court has recognized an exception to the at-will doctrine “where there is an agreement that the employment is for a specified time, in which case firing may be only for cause, or where an employer’s employment manual contains an express provision stating that the employee will only be dismissed for cause and that provision is relied on by the employee.” Crain Indus., Inc. v. Cass, 305 Ark. 566, 571 , 810 S.W.2d 910, 913 (1991). 2021This court has recognized an exception to the at-will doctrine “where there is an agreement that the employment is for a specified time, in which case firing may be only for cause, or where an employer’s employment manual contains an express provision stating that the employee will only be dismissed for cause and that provision is relied on by the employee.” Crain Indus., Inc. v. Cass, 305 Ark. 566, 571 , 810 S.W.2d 910, 913 (1991). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. American Greetings Corp.green2 sentences2019Greetings Corp., 304 Ark. 596, 600, 601 , 804 S.W.2d 683, 685, 686 (1991) (handbook statement that “[w]e believe in working and thinking and planning to provide a stable and growing business, to give such service to our customers that we may provide maximum job security for our employees” was not an express provision that defeated the at-will doctrine). 2019Greetings Corp., 304 Ark. 596, 600, 601 , 804 S.W.2d 683, 685, 686 (1991) (handbook statement that “[w]e believe in working and thinking and planning to provide a stable and growing business, to give such service to our customers that we may provide maximum job security for our employees” was not an express provision that defeated the at-will doctrine). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
MBM Co., Inc. v. Counce
green
2 sentences1994Co. v. Counce, 268 Ark. 269 , 596 S.W.2d 681 (1980), the Arkansas Supreme Court indicated that it might recognize an exception to the at-will doctrine if an employee is "discharged for exercising a statutory right, or for performing a duty required of her by law or that the reason for the discharge was in violation of some other well established public policy." 3 The Arkansas Supreme Court first recognized a cause of action for the tort of outrage or intentional infliction of emotional distress in an employment setting in the case of M.B.M. 1994Co. v. Counce, 268 Ark. 269 , 596 S.W.2d 681 (1980), the Arkansas Supreme Court indicated that it might recognize an exception to the at-will doctrine if an employee is "discharged for exercising a statutory right, or for performing a duty required of her by law or that the reason for the discharge was in violation of some other well established public policy." 3 The Arkansas Supreme Court first recognized a cause of action for the tort of outrage or intentional infliction of emotional distress in an employment setting in the case of M.B.M. | 3 | 1983–1994 |
Scholtes v. Signal Delivery Service, Inc.
green
2 sentences1991In reaching our conclusion, we quoted from Sholtes v. Signal Delivery Serv., Inc., 548 F. Supp. 487 (W.D.Ark. 1982) in which the federal district court concluded that: Arkansas law would recognize at least four exceptions to the at-will doctrine, excluding implied contracts and estoppel. 1991Four exceptions to the at-will doctrine under Arkansas law were identified by the United States District Court in Scholtes v. Signal Delivery Service, Inc., 548 F.Supp. 487 (W.D. | 3 | 1991–1994 |
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Baysinger
green
2 sentences1994Id. 1994Id. | 2 | 1994–1994 |
Magic Touch Corp. v. Hicks
green
1 sentence2008Id. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Robinson v. Langdon
green
2 sentences2002Gladden v. Arkansas Children’s Hospital, supra; Robinson v. Langdon, 333 Ark. 662 , 970 S.W.2d 292 (1998). 2002Gladden v. Arkansas Children’s Hospital, supra; Robinson v. Langdon, 333 Ark. 662 , 970 S.W.2d 292 (1998). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Griffin v. Erickson
green
2 sentences1998In Griffin v. Erickson, 277 Ark. 433 , 642 S.W.2d 308 (1982), we distinguished that a ‘“contract at will’ . . . may be terminated by either party, whereas a contract for a definite term may not be terminated before the end of the term, except for cause or by mutual agreement, unless the right to do so is reserved in the contract.” Although we have recognized several exceptions to the at-will doctrine, none are applicable to the facts at hand. 1998In Griffin v. Erickson, 277 Ark. 433 , 642 S.W.2d 308 (1982), we distinguished that a ‘“contract at will’ . . . may be terminated by either party, whereas a contract for a definite term may not be terminated before the end of the term, except for cause or by mutual agreement, unless the right to do so is reserved in the contract.” Although we have recognized several exceptions to the at-will doctrine, none are applicable to the facts at hand. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
City of Green Forest v. Morse
green
2 sentences1994Co. v. Counce, 268 Ark. at 280 . 4 Most recently, in the case of City of Green Forest v. Morse, 316 Ark. 540 , 546-547 , 873 S.W.2d 155 (1994), the Court, in referring to this language in Sterling Drug, stated: In sum, the exceptions to the at-will doctrine will be recognized to protect a well-established and substantial public policy and not merely to protect the private or proprietary interests of the employee. 1994Co. v. Counce, 268 Ark. at 280 . 4 Most recently, in the case of City of Green Forest v. Morse, 316 Ark. 540 , 546-547 , 873 S.W.2d 155 (1994), the Court, in referring to this language in Sterling Drug, stated: In sum, the exceptions to the at-will doctrine will be recognized to protect a well-established and substantial public policy and not merely to protect the private or proprietary interests of the employee. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Jackson v. Kinark Corp.
green
2 sentences1988The court found that if the allegations were true, the public policy of the state was contravened because "[a] woman invited to trade herself for a job is in effect being asked to become a prostitute." In Counce, supra , we acknowledged that we might recognize an exception to the at-will doctrine if an employee is "discharged for exercising a statutory right, or for performing a duty required of her by law or that the reason for the discharge was in violation of some other well established public policy." In Jackson v. Kinark Corp., 282 Ark. 548 , 669 S.W.2d 898 (1984), we noted the judicial t 1988The court found that if the allegations were true, the public policy of the state was contravened because "[a] woman invited to trade herself for a job is in effect being asked to become a prostitute." In Counce, supra , we acknowledged that we might recognize an exception to the at-will doctrine if an employee is "discharged for exercising a statutory right, or for performing a duty required of her by law or that the reason for the discharge was in violation of some other well established public policy." In Jackson v. Kinark Corp., 282 Ark. 548 , 669 S.W.2d 898 (1984), we noted the judicial t | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.