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.
9 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2007 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Utah 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 |
|---|---|---|
Berube v. Fashion Centre, Ltd.green2 sentences2007I write separately to supplement her justification for conducting a nondeferen-tial review of rulings that apply the private attorney general doctrine with the observation that our employment termination jurisprudence provides ample precedent for de novo review of questions that require us to measure the importance of a particular public policy. ¶ 14 In Berube v. Fashion Centre, Ltd., 771 P.2d 1033 (Utah 1989), we ratified three exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine. 2007I write separately to supplement her justification for conducting a nondeferential review of rulings that apply the private attorney general doctrine with the observation that our employment termination jurisprudence provides ample precedent for de novo review of questions that require us to measure the importance of a particular public policy. ¶ 14 In Berube v. Fashion Centre, Ltd., 771 P.2d 1033 (Utah 1989), we ratified three exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine. | 3 | 5 |
Peterson v. Browninggreen2 sentences1999“Under [this] exception, the at-will doctrine will not insulate an employer from liability where an employee is fired in a manner or for a reason that contravenes a clear and substantial public policy.” Peterson v. Browning, 832 P.2d 1280, 1281 (Utah 1992). ¶ 30 Dixon claims that at stake here is “the clear public policy ... that an employee be paid fully for all services rendered.” Dixon refers to section 34-28-3 of the Utah Code as the pronouncement of this policy. 1996See Peterson v. Browning, 832 P.2d 1280, 1281-82 (Utah 1992). | 2 | 2 |
Ryan v. Dan's Food Stores, Inc.green2 sentences2001See Ryan, 972 P.2d at 405 . 1999That section states, “All wages shall be paid in full to the employee.” Utah Code Ann. § 34-28-3 (1)(d) (Supp.1998). ¶ 31 When presented with an asserted public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine, this court “recognizefs] the importance of keeping the scope of the public policy exception narrow to avoid unreasonably eliminating employer discretion in discharging employees.” Ryan, 972 P.2d at 405 . | 1 | 2 |
Rackley v. Fairview Care Centers, Inc.green1 sentence2001See Rackley, 970 P.2d at 282 . | 1 | 1 |
Brehany v. Nordstrom, Inc.green1 sentence1994Leasing Co., 844 P.2d 303, 308 (Utah 1992); Heslop v. Bank of Utah, 839 P.2d 828, 840 (Utah 1992); and Brehany v. Nordstrom, Inc., 812 P.2d 49, 55 (Utah 1991) leave room for an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in agreements which do not fall within or modify the employment at-will doctrine. | 1 | 1 |
Sanderson v. First Security Leasing Co.green1 sentence1994Leasing Co., 844 P.2d 303, 308 (Utah 1992); Heslop v. Bank of Utah, 839 P.2d 828, 840 (Utah 1992); and Brehany v. Nordstrom, Inc., 812 P.2d 49, 55 (Utah 1991) leave room for an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in agreements which do not fall within or modify the employment at-will doctrine. | 1 | 1 |
Heslop v. Bank of Utahgreen1 sentence1994Leasing Co., 844 P.2d 303, 308 (Utah 1992); Heslop v. Bank of Utah, 839 P.2d 828, 840 (Utah 1992); and Brehany v. Nordstrom, Inc., 812 P.2d 49, 55 (Utah 1991) leave room for an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in agreements which do not fall within or modify the employment at-will doctrine. | 1 | 1 |
Burk v. K-Mart Corp.green2 sentences1992Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 770 P.2d 24, 28 (Okla.1989) (public policy exception attempts to balance competing interests of society, employee, and employer). 1992Burk v. K-Mart Cory., 770 P.2d 24, 28 (Okla.1989) (public policy exception attempts to balance competing interests of society, employee, and employer). | 1 | 1 |
Boyle v. Vista Eyewear, Inc.green2 sentences1992Boyle v. Vista Eyewear, Inc., 700 S.W.2d 859, 872 (Mo.Ct. 1992Boyle v. Vista Eyewear, Inc., 700 S.W.2d 859, 872 (Mo.Ct.App.1985). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.