limited public policy exception (Oklahoma) · Go Syfert
← Oklahoma issues

limited public policy exception in Oklahoma

11 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2021 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Oklahoma 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.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (2)

CaseNegativeCited
Burk v. K-Mart Corp.green
okla · 1989 · cited in 9 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1989–2021
2 sentences

2002Id., 1989 OK 22 at 1 14, 770 P.2d at 28 . 110 After Burk, the Supreme Court continued to recognize the existence of the limited public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine.

2002Id., 1989 OK 22 at 1 14, 770 P.2d at 28 . 110 After Burk, the Supreme Court continued to recognize the existence of the limited public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine.

19
Shero v. Grand Savings Bankgreen
okla · 2007 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
2 sentences

2009But see, Shero v. Grand Savings Bank, 2007 OK 24, ¶ 13 , 161 P.3d 298 , which reached the opposite conclusion.

2009But see, Shero v. Grand Savings Bank, 2007 OK 24, ¶ 13 , 161 P.3d 298 , which reached the opposite conclusion.

11

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Groce v. Foster green
okla · 1994
2 sentences

2009In 1994, we decided Groce v. Foster, 1994 OK 88 , ¶ 19, 880 P.2d 902 , in which we held that under the limited public policy exception, an employee could assert a Burk tort against a former employer when the employee was fired for not dismissing his common law negligence action against a third party who was a customer of the employer.

2009In 1994, we decided Groce v. Foster, 1994 OK 88 , ¶19, 880 P.2d 902 , in which we held that under the limited public policy exception, an employee could assert a Burk tort against a former employer when the employee was fired for not dismissing his common law negligence action against a third party who was a customer of the employer.

12009–2009
Prince v. St. John Medical Center green
oklacivapp · 1998
2 sentences

1998John Medical Center, 1998 OK CIV APP 92 , 957 P.2d 563 (Citing and quoting Burk).

1998John Medical Center, 1998 OK CIV APP 92 , 957 P.2d 563 (Citing and quoting Burk).

11998–1998
Palmateer v. International Harvester Co. green
ill · 1981
2 sentences

1989Liability is imposed on an employer only when "an employee is discharged for refusing to act in violation of an established and well-defined public policy or for performing an act consistent with a clear and compelling public policy." Id. at 29 .

1989Liability is imposed on an employer only when “an employee is discharged for refusing to act in violation of an established and well-defined public policy or for performing an act consistent with a clear and compelling public policy.” Id. at 29 .

11989–1989
McGehee v. Florafax International, Inc. green
okla · 1989
2 sentences

1989McGehee v. Florafax Int'l, Inc., 776 P.2d 852 (Okla. 1989).

1989McGehee v. Florafax Int’l, Inc., 776 P.2d 852 (Okla.1989).

11989–1989

Where else courts name it

OK 11 (1989–2021) HI 7 (2009–2026) AR 6 (1992–2026) DC 4 (1991–1998) MI 2 (2002–2023) NM 2 (1989–2010) ND 2 (1985–2004) PA 2 (1988–2010) MO 2 (1995–1995) KS 2 (1988–1988)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check