12 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Institute, P.C.green2 sentences2014Id. 2011“However, the at-will doctrine is limited in certain respects,” including “the public-policy exception to the at-will-employment rule.” Id. at 346 . “[T]his Court expressly adopts the following as the public-policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine: An at-will employee may not be terminated (1) for refusing to violate the law or any well-established and clear mandate of public policy as expressed in the constitution, statutes, regulations promulgated pursuant to statute, or rules created by a governmental body or (2) for reporting wrongdoing or violations of law to superiors or publ | 1 | 3 |
Bishop v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co.green2 sentences2008In these situations, "whether labeled an independent contractor or employee, the relationship and termination of it is governed by general principles enunciated in the at-will doctrine cases." Bishop, 129 S.W.3d at 506 . 7 . 2007“Such agreements have been characterized as agency con *525 tracts ‘terminable at will.’ In such situations, whether labeled an independent contractor or employee, the relationship and termination of it is governed by general principles enunciated in the at-will doctrine cases.” Bishop, 129 S.W.3d at 506 (internal citation omitted); see James H. | 1 | 2 |
Dunn v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co.green1 sentence2006Dunn v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co., 170 S.W.3d 1, 6 (Mo.App.2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Paisley v. Lucasgreen2 sentences2004See, e.g., Emerick, 756 S.W.2d at 521-22 ; Paisley v. Lucas, 346 Mo. 827 , 143 S.W.2d 262, 270-71 (1940); Costello, 697 S.W.2d at 237 . 2004See, e.g., Emerick, 756 S.W.2d at 521-22 ; Paisley v. Lucas, 346 Mo. 827 , 143 S.W.2d 262, 270-71 (1940); Costello, 697 S.W.2d at 237 . | 1 | 1 |
Emerick v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co.green1 sentence2004See, e.g., Emerick, 756 S.W.2d at 521-22 ; Paisley v. Lucas, 346 Mo. 827 , 143 S.W.2d 262, 270-71 (1940); Costello, 697 S.W.2d at 237 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Margiotta v. Christian Hospital Northeast Northwest
green
2 sentences2020“However, the at-will doctrine is limited in certain respects.” Id. 2016The at-will doctrine is also limited by a “public-policy exception.” Id. | 3 | 2011–2020 |
Sivigliano v. Harrah's North Kansas City Corp.
green
1 sentence2008Id. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Sloan v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co.
green
1 sentence2004However, this court need not “wade into those murky waters.” Sloan, 1 S.W.3d at 568 n. 8. 3 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Costello v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence2004See, e.g., Emerick, 756 S.W.2d at 521-22 ; Paisley v. Lucas, 346 Mo. 827 , 143 S.W.2d 262, 270-71 (1940); Costello, 697 S.W.2d at 237 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Dake v. Tuell
green
1 sentence1995In Dake v. Tuell, 687 S.W.2d 191 (Mo. banc 1985), the court examined a claim by two former employees of a retail business who were discharged after informing the employer that other employees were making false representations to customers. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Smith v. Arthur C. Baue Funeral Home
green
2 sentences1985Baue Funeral Home, 370 S.W.2d 249 (Mo.1963), in dictum used the "for any reason" phrase in describing the scope of the application of the at-will doctrine. 1985Baue Funeral Home, 370 S.W.2d 249 (Mo. 1963), in dictum used the “for any reason” phrase in describing the scope of the application of the at-will doctrine. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.