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.
10 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2023 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado 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 |
|---|---|---|
Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenzgreen2 sentences1998Further, Hoyt’s actions are distinguishable from the circumstances in Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenz, 823 P.2d 100 (Colo.1992), where a wrongful discharge in violation of public policy claim was found to exist under circumstances in which the plaintiff had refused to engage in acts of deception and misrepresentation concerning the quality of materials used by his employer in designing equipment for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 1998Further, Hoyt's actions are distinguishable from the circumstances in Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenz, 823 P.2d 100 (Colo.1992), where a wrongful discharge in violation of public policy claim was found to exist under circumstances in which the plaintiff had refused to engage in acts of deception and misrepresentation concerning the quality of materials used by his employer in designing equipment for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. | 1 | 3 |
Donald L. Cale v. The City of Covington, Virginiagreen1 sentence2023Id. at 312. ¶307 The majority devotes all of one sentence to Cale and disregards most of the Supreme Court jurisprudence to which that thoughtful opinion is moored. | 1 | 1 |
Crawford Rehabilitation Services, Inc. v. Weissmangreen1 sentence2022See Weiss man , 938 P.2d at 553 (holding that the Department of Labor an d Employment’s wage order “d[id] 20 not rise to the level of a public-poli cy mandate susceptible to private enforcement” concerning a clerical typist’s right to take rest breaks). ¶ 40 These cases demonstrate that a court will only recognize a “job-related right” as an expression of public policy if such right is clearly expressed in a statute or an administrative regulation. ¶ 41 We can discern no direct or indirec t reference to a “job-related right” in Castillo’s complaint. | 1 | 1 |
Perreira v. Stategreen2 sentences1992Because the parties did not have the benefit of either the Cronk decision or this court's opinion relating to the additional element of a wrongful discharge claim under the public-policy exception, they obviously were at some considerable disadvantage “in mar-shalling evidence in support of and in defense of a claim which might or might not be legally cognizable and, if legally cognizable, might or might not encompass the particular circumstances of this case.” Perreira v. State, 768 P.2d 1198, 1220 (Colo.1989). 1992Because the parties did not have the benefit of either the Cronk decision or this court's opinion relating to the additional element of a wrongful discharge claim under the public-policy exception, they obviously were at some considerable disadvantage "in marshalling evidence in support of and in defense of a claim which might or might not be legally cognizable and, if legally cognizable, might or might not encompass the particular circumstances of this case." Perreira v. State, 768 P.2d 1198, 1220 (Colo.1989). | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. World Color Press, Inc.green2 sentences1991See Johnson v. World Color Press Inc., 147 Ill.App.3d 746 , 101 Ill.Dec. 251 , 498 N.E.2d 575 (1986); Trombetta v. Detroit Toledo & Ironton R. 1991See Johnson v. World Color Press Inc., 147 Ill.App.3d 746 , 101 Ill.Dec. 251 , 498 N.E.2d 575 (1986); Trombetta v. Detroit Toledo & Ironton R. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Trinity Broadcasting of Denver, Inc. v. City of Westminster
green
1 sentence2018The district court held a Trinity hearing on the wrongful discharge in violation of public policy claim and dismissed that claim with 5 prejudice.2 See Trinity Broad. of Denver v. City of Westminster, 848 P.2d 916 (Colo. 1993). ¶ 12 After the district court denied the Sheriff’s motion to dismiss the implied contract claim for failure to state a claim, the Sheriff moved for summary judgment. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Mariani v. Rocky Mountain Hospital & Medical Service
green
1 sentence1996Mariani, 902 P.2d at 433 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Tyra v. Kearney
green
2 sentences1995In Tyra v. Kearney, supra , the California Court of Appeal extended the Finnegan analysis and held that a wrongful discharge claim under state law is preempted by the provisions of the LMRDA. 1995In Tyra v. Kearney, supra, the California Court of Appeal extended the Finnegan analysis and held that a wrongful discharge claim under state law is preempted by the provisions of the LMRDA. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Cronk v. Intermountain Rural Electric Ass'n
green
2 sentences1992Ass’n, 765 P.2d 619 (Colo.App.1988), should be applied retroactively to Lorenz’s claim, and that the statute of limitations for such a claim began to run on the day following Lorenz’s discharge rather than on the date on which he was notified of his termination. 1992Ass'n, 765 P.2d 619 (Colo.App.1988), should be applied retroactively to Lorenz's claim, and that the statute of limitations for such a claim began to run on the day following Lorenz's discharge rather than on the date on which he was notified of his termination. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers of America, Local 114
green
2 sentences1990However, as noted above, this reasoning is undercut by the Supreme Court’s decision in Lingle permitting a wrongful discharge claim to go forward in state court even though, under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, a grievance procedure was established for determining whether an employee had been discharged for “just cause.” Moreover, the “qualified privilege” standard articulated by this court in Dominguez and Churchey is virtually indistinguishable from the standard approved by the Supreme Court in Old Dominion Branch No. 496, National Association of Letter Carriers v. Austin, 4 1990However, as noted above, this reasoning is undercut by the Supreme Court’s decision in Lingle permitting a wrongful discharge claim to go forward in state court even though, under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, a grievance procedure was established for determining whether an employee had been discharged for “just cause.” Moreover, the “qualified privilege” standard articulated by this court in Dominguez and Churchey is virtually indistinguishable from the standard approved by the Supreme Court in Old Dominion Branch No. 496, National Association of Letter Carriers v. Austin, 4 | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Old Dominion Branch No. 496 v. Austin
green
2 sentences1990However, as noted above, this reasoning is undercut by the Supreme Court’s decision in Lingle permitting a wrongful discharge claim to go forward in state court even though, under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, a grievance procedure was established for determining whether an employee had been discharged for “just cause.” Moreover, the “qualified privilege” standard articulated by this court in Dominguez and Churchey is virtually indistinguishable from the standard approved by the Supreme Court in Old Dominion Branch No. 496, National Association of Letter Carriers v. Austin, 4 1990However, as noted above, this reasoning is undercut by the Supreme Court’s decision in Lingle permitting a wrongful discharge claim to go forward in state court even though, under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, a grievance procedure was established for determining whether an employee had been discharged for “just cause.” Moreover, the “qualified privilege” standard articulated by this court in Dominguez and Churchey is virtually indistinguishable from the standard approved by the Supreme Court in Old Dominion Branch No. 496, National Association of Letter Carriers v. Austin, 4 | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.