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.
16 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey 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 |
|---|---|---|
English v. College of Medicine and Dentistry of NJgreen2 sentences2020Lipton, Inc., 136 N.J. 385, 397 (1994) (citing English v. Coll. of Med. & Dentistry, 73 N.J. 20, 23 (1977)). 2020Lipton, Inc., 136 N.J. 385, 397 (1994) (citing English v. Coll. of Med. & Dentistry, 73 N.J. 20, 23 (1977)). | 2 | 4 |
Witkowski v. Thomas J. Lipton, Inc.green2 sentences2020Lipton, Inc., 136 N.J. 385, 397 (1994) (citing English v. Coll. of Med. & Dentistry, 73 N.J. 20, 23 (1977)). 2020Lipton, Inc., 136 N.J. 385, 397 (1994) (citing English v. Coll. of Med. & Dentistry, 73 N.J. 20, 23 (1977)). | 2 | 4 |
Wade v. Kessler Institutegreen2 sentences2021An employment relationship remains terminable at the will of either an employer or employee, unless an agreement exists that provides otherwise." Wade v. Kessler Inst., 172 N.J. 327, 338 (2002) (quoting Witkowski v. Thomas J. 2014Analogizing plaintiffs' ICAs to employment contracts, "an employer may fire an employee for good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all under the employment-at-will doctrine." Wade v. Kessler Inst., 172 N.J. 327, 338 (2002). | 2 | 2 |
Martin v. New York Life Insurancegreen2 sentences2004Co., 148 N.Y. 117 , 42 N.E. 416, 417 (1895), and quickly took hold in other American jurisdictions at the end of the 19th Century. 2004Co., 148 N.Y. 117 , 42 N.E. 416, 417 (1895), and quickly took hold in other American jurisdictions at the end of the 19th Century. | 1 | 1 |
Ingle v. Glamore Motor Sales, Inc.green2 sentences1997See Ingle v. Glamore Motor Sales, Inc., 73 N.Y.2d 183 , 538 N.Y.S.2d 771 , 535 N.E.2d 1311, 1313 (1989). 1997See Ingle v. Glamore Motor Sales, Inc., 73 N.Y.2d 183 , 538 N.Y.S.2d 771 , 535 N.E.2d 1311, 1313 (1989). | 1 | 1 |
McQuitty v. General Dynamics Corp.green2 sentences1994It recognizes that “as always, the employer and employee are free to contract for terms and conditions of employment, such as termination only ‘for cause.’ ” Donovan & Reilly, supra, 22 Seton Hall L.Rev. at 816; see also McQuitty v. General Dynamics Corp., 204 N.J.Super. 514, 520 , 499 A.2d 526 (App.Div.1985) (“Woolley is not ... ‘an exception to the at-will doctrine’ ... but, rather, a recognition of basic contract principles concerning acceptance of unilateral contracts.”). 1994It recognizes that “as always, the employer and employee are free to contract for terms and conditions of employment, such as termination only ‘for cause.’ ” Donovan & Reilly, supra, 22 Seton Hall L.Rev. at 816; see also McQuitty v. General Dynamics Corp., 204 N.J.Super. 514, 520 , 499 A.2d 526 (App.Div.1985) (“Woolley is not ... ‘an exception to the at-will doctrine’ ... but, rather, a recognition of basic contract principles concerning acceptance of unilateral contracts.”). | 1 | 1 |
Coppage v. Kansasgreen2 sentences1993See Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 , 35 S.Ct. 240 , 59 L.Ed. 441 (1915) (striking down state laws that prohibited firing of union members as violative of due process); Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161 , 28 S.Ct. 277 , 52 L.Ed. 436 (1908) (striking down federal laws that prohibited firing of union members). 1993See Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 , 35 S.Ct. 240 , 59 L.Ed. 441 (1915) (striking down state laws that prohibited firing of union members as violative of due process); Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161 , 28 S.Ct. 277 , 52 L.Ed. 436 (1908) (striking down federal laws that prohibited firing of union members). | 1 | 1 |
Sheets v. Teddy's Frosted Foods, Inc.green2 sentences1986In Sheets v. Teddy's Frosted Foods, Inc., 179 Conn. 471 , 427 A. 2d 385, 387 (1980), the Connecticut Supreme Court cited cases of wrongful termination where employees exercised their right to (1) refuse to commit perjury, (2) file a workmen's compensation claim, and (3) engage in union activity. 1986In Sheets v. Teddy's Frosted Foods, Inc., 179 Conn. 471 , 427 A. 2d 385, 387 (1980), the Connecticut Supreme Court cited cases of wrongful termination where employees exercised their right to (1) refuse to commit perjury, (2) file a workmen's compensation claim, and (3) engage in union activity. | 1 | 1 |
Harless v. First National Bank in Fairmontgreen1 sentence1979See, e.g., Harless v. First Nat'l Bank in Fairmont, 246 S.E. 2d 270 (W. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.
green
2 sentences2017Pierce, supra, 84 N.J. at 72 . 2017Pierce, supra, 84 N.J. at 72 . | 3 | 2001–2017 |
Woolley v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc.
green
2 sentences2004Corp., 84 N.J. 58 , 417 A.2d 505 (1980) and Woolley v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc., 99 N.J. 284 , 491 A.2d 1257 (1985), Alabama still follows the ancient brightline rule that an at-will employee can be terminated for any or no reason, generally holding that any such change should come from its Legislature. 2004Corp., 84 N.J. 58 , 417 A.2d 505 (1980) and Woolley v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc., 99 N.J. 284 , 491 A.2d 1257 (1985), Alabama still follows the ancient brightline rule that an at-will employee can be terminated for any or no reason, generally holding that any such change should come from its Legislature. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Velantzas v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.
green
2 sentences2001Lipton, *994 Inc., 136 N.J. 385, 397 , 643 A. 2d 546 (1994); Velantzas v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 109 N.J. 189, 191 , 536 A. 2d 237 (1988); English v. College of Medicine & Dentistry, 73 N.J. 20, 23 , 372 A. 2d 295 (1977); Savarese v. Pyrene Manufacturing Co., 9 N.J. 595, 600 , 89 A. 2d 237 (1952). 2001Lipton, *994 Inc., 136 N.J. 385, 397 , 643 A. 2d 546 (1994); Velantzas v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 109 N.J. 189, 191 , 536 A. 2d 237 (1988); English v. College of Medicine & Dentistry, 73 N.J. 20, 23 , 372 A. 2d 295 (1977); Savarese v. Pyrene Manufacturing Co., 9 N.J. 595, 600 , 89 A. 2d 237 (1952). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Lally v. Copygraphics
green
1 sentence2001Ibid. (citing Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 84 N.J. 58, 66-73 , 417 A. 2d 505 (1980)). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Savarese v. Pyrene Manufacturing Co.
green
2 sentences2001Lipton, *994 Inc., 136 N.J. 385, 397 , 643 A. 2d 546 (1994); Velantzas v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 109 N.J. 189, 191 , 536 A. 2d 237 (1988); English v. College of Medicine & Dentistry, 73 N.J. 20, 23 , 372 A. 2d 295 (1977); Savarese v. Pyrene Manufacturing Co., 9 N.J. 595, 600 , 89 A. 2d 237 (1952). 2001Lipton, *994 Inc., 136 N.J. 385, 397 , 643 A. 2d 546 (1994); Velantzas v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 109 N.J. 189, 191 , 536 A. 2d 237 (1988); English v. College of Medicine & Dentistry, 73 N.J. 20, 23 , 372 A. 2d 295 (1977); Savarese v. Pyrene Manufacturing Co., 9 N.J. 595, 600 , 89 A. 2d 237 (1952). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Shebar v. Sanyo Business Systems Corp.
green
2 sentences1996She contends that under Shebar v. Sanyo Business Systems Corp., 111 N.J. 276 , 544 A. 2d 377 (1988), "oral representations that were made ... on which [s]he relied by foregoing a job opportunity can transform plaintiff's at-will employment claim into employment with termination for cause only." She insists that by moving from Boston to New Jersey and giving up her desktop publishing business consideration was given for the promise of employment which was subject to termination only for cause. 1996She contends that under Shebar v. Sanyo Business Systems Corp., 111 N.J. 276 , 544 A. 2d 377 (1988), "oral representations that were made ... on which [s]he relied by foregoing a job opportunity can transform plaintiff's at-will employment claim into employment with termination for cause only." She insists that by moving from Boston to New Jersey and giving up her desktop publishing business consideration was given for the promise of employment which was subject to termination only for cause. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Adair v. United States
green
2 sentences1993See Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 , 35 S.Ct. 240 , 59 L.Ed. 441 (1915) (striking down state laws that prohibited firing of union members as violative of due process); Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161 , 28 S.Ct. 277 , 52 L.Ed. 436 (1908) (striking down federal laws that prohibited firing of union members). 1993See Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 , 35 S.Ct. 240 , 59 L.Ed. 441 (1915) (striking down state laws that prohibited firing of union members as violative of due process); Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161 , 28 S.Ct. 277 , 52 L.Ed. 436 (1908) (striking down federal laws that prohibited firing of union members). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Kennard v. Louis Zimmer Communications, Inc.
green
2 sentences1988A similar conclusion was reached in Kennard v. Louis Zimmer Communications, Inc., 632 F. Supp. 635 (E.D.Pa. 1986), where the court allowed a *445 discharged employee to bring a retaliatory discharge suit in federal court based on the Pennsylvania public policy tort exception to the employment-at-will doctrine where the employee alleged that her termination was in retaliation for having lodged a complaint with OSHA regarding work and health conditions. 1988Although the court recognized that the prevailing authority is that no private right of action for an unlawful discharge exists under 29 U.S.C. § 660 (c), it observed that the employee was not alleging a private right of action pursuant to this section, but rather, was seeking to recover damages for wrongful discharge under a tort theory. 632 F. Supp. at 637 n. 1. | 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.