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.
7 California opinions name it 1 courts 1949–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California 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 |
|---|---|---|
Motevalli v. Los Angeles Unified School Districtgreen2 sentences2012Code,] § 2920, subd. (a).)” (Daly, supra, 55 Cal.App.4th at p. 45 ; accord, Motevalli v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 97, 102 [ 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 562 ] [“[N]o cause of action exists for tortious nonrenewal of an employment contract in violation of public policy.”]; Wells v. Board of Trustees of California State University (N.D.Cal 2005) 393 F.Supp.2d 990, 997 [“In California, an employee whose fixed-term contract is not renewed cannot state a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy.”].) Daly explained that the plaintiff’s “use of the term ‘wrongful 2012Code,] § 2920, subd. (a).)” (Daly, supra, 55 Cal.App.4th at p. 45 ; accord, Motevalli v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 97, 102 [ 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 562 ] [“[N]o cause of action exists for tortious nonrenewal of an employment contract in violation of public policy.”]; Wells v. Board of Trustees of California State University (N.D.Cal 2005) 393 F.Supp.2d 990, 997 [“In California, an employee whose fixed-term contract is not renewed cannot state a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy.”].) Daly explained that the plaintiff’s “use of the term ‘wrongful | 1 | 2 |
Daly v. Exxon Corp.green2 sentences2012Code,] § 2920, subd. (a).)” (Daly, supra, 55 Cal.App.4th at p. 45 ; accord, Motevalli v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 97, 102 [ 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 562 ] [“[N]o cause of action exists for tortious nonrenewal of an employment contract in violation of public policy.”]; Wells v. Board of Trustees of California State University (N.D.Cal 2005) 393 F.Supp.2d 990, 997 [“In California, an employee whose fixed-term contract is not renewed cannot state a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy.”].) Daly explained that the plaintiff’s “use of the term ‘wrongful 2012Code,] § 2920, subd. (a).)” (Daly, supra, 55 Cal.App.4th at p. 45 ; accord, Motevalli v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 97, 102 [ 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 562 ] [“[N]o cause of action exists for tortious nonrenewal of an employment contract in violation of public policy.”]; Wells v. Board of Trustees of California State University (N.D.Cal 2005) 393 F.Supp.2d 990, 997 [“In California, an employee whose fixed-term contract is not renewed cannot state a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy.”].) Daly explained that the plaintiff’s “use of the term ‘wrongful | 1 | 2 |
Tollefson v. Roman Catholic Bishop of San Diegogreen2 sentences2012Code,] § 2920, subd. (a).)” (Daly, supra, 55 Cal.App.4th at p. 45 ; accord, Motevalli v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 97, 102 [ 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 562 ] [“[N]o cause of action exists for tortious nonrenewal of an employment contract in violation of public policy.”]; Wells v. Board of Trustees of California State University (N.D.Cal 2005) 393 F.Supp.2d 990, 997 [“In California, an employee whose fixed-term contract is not renewed cannot state a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy.”].) Daly explained that the plaintiff’s “use of the term ‘wrongful 2012Code,] § 2920, subd. (a).)” (Daly, supra, 55 Cal.App.4th at p. 45 ; accord, Motevalli v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 97, 102 [ 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 562 ] [“[N]o cause of action exists for tortious nonrenewal of an employment contract in violation of public policy.”]; Wells v. Board of Trustees of California State University (N.D.Cal 2005) 393 F.Supp.2d 990, 997 [“In California, an employee whose fixed-term contract is not renewed cannot state a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy.”].) Daly explained that the plaintiff’s “use of the term ‘wrongful | 1 | 1 |
Wells v. Board of Trustees of the California State Universitygreen1 sentence2012Code,] § 2920, subd. (a).)” (Daly, supra, 55 Cal.App.4th at p. 45 ; accord, Motevalli v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 97, 102 [ 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 562 ] [“[N]o cause of action exists for tortious nonrenewal of an employment contract in violation of public policy.”]; Wells v. Board of Trustees of California State University (N.D.Cal 2005) 393 F.Supp.2d 990, 997 [“In California, an employee whose fixed-term contract is not renewed cannot state a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy.”].) Daly explained that the plaintiff’s “use of the term ‘wrongful | 1 | 1 |
Buford v. State of Californiagreen2 sentences2004The sufficiency of the pleadings is a question of law (Buford v. State of California (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 811, 818 [ 164 Cal.Rptr. 264 ]) and on such questions, we are required to make an independent determination. 2004The sufficiency of the pleadings is a question of law (Buford v. State of California (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 811, 818 [ 164 Cal.Rptr. 264 ]) and on such questions, we are required to make an independent determination. | 1 | 1 |
D'AMICO v. Board of Medical Examinersgreen2 sentences2004(D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 19 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 520 P.2d 10 ].) Motevalli pled in her complaint that on June 8, 2001, she was notified “her contract would not be renewed.” As the parties acknowledge in their appellate briefs, the grant of summary adjudication on the Tameny claim was in effect a grant of a motion for judgment on the pleadings on that cause of action—the trial court ruled that pursuant to Daly , no cause of action exists for tortious nonrenewal of an employment contract in violation of public policy. 2004(D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 19 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 520 P.2d 10 ].) Motevalli pled in her complaint that on June 8, 2001, she was notified “her contract would not be renewed.” As the parties acknowledge in their appellate briefs, the grant of summary adjudication on the Tameny claim was in effect a grant of a motion for judgment on the pleadings on that cause of action—the trial court ruled that pursuant to Daly , no cause of action exists for tortious nonrenewal of an employment contract in violation of public policy. | 1 | 1 |
Congleton v. National Union Fire Insurancegreen2 sentences1997Co. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 51, 62 [ 234 Cal.Rptr. 218 ] [an amendment which contradicts an admission in a prior pleading is, generally speaking, not allowed].) Conclusion Daly seeks leave to allege a new cause of action for what she labels “tortious nonrenewal of an employment contract in violation of public *46 policy.” “We are unaware of any case, and [Daly] presents none, in which an employer was held liable in tort for refusing to renew an employment contract that had expired by its own terms.” (Schimmel v. NORCAL Mutual Ins. 1997Co. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 51, 62 [ 234 Cal.Rptr. 218 ] [an amendment which contradicts an admission in a prior pleading is, generally speaking, not allowed].) Conclusion Daly seeks leave to allege a new cause of action for what she labels “tortious nonrenewal of an employment contract in violation of public *46 policy.” “We are unaware of any case, and [Daly] presents none, in which an employer was held liable in tort for refusing to renew an employment contract that had expired by its own terms.” (Schimmel v. NORCAL Mutual Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Schimmel v. Norcal Mutual Insurancegreen2 sentences1997Co. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1282, 1286 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 401 ].) As discussed, Daly’s remedy is limited to section 6310, subdivision (b). 1997Co. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1282, 1286 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 401 ].) As discussed, Daly’s remedy is limited to section 6310, subdivision (b). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Touchstone Television Productions v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2021(Motevalli v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 97, 112-113 ; Touchstone Television Productions v. Superior Court (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 676, 684 .) For all these reasons, the Hotel’s alleged failure to rehire Bruni in accordance with the recall ordinance cannot give rise to a Tameny claim. 14 DISPOSITION The judgment of dismissal is affirmed. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Gantt v. Sentry Insurance
green
1 sentence2021And society's interests are served through a more stable job market, in which its most important policies are safeguarded.” (Gantt, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 1095 , italics added.) Additionally, the mere nonrenewal of an employment contract—as opposed to the unlawful termination of an employment contract in violation of public policy—is not a basis for a Tameny claim. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.
green
1 sentence2015(Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994) 510 U.S. 569, 577 .) Had Hanson and the Raiders intended to limit arbitrable disputes to those arising from the terms of the employment contract, there would be no reason to use the phrase “all matters in dispute . . . including without limitation.” Thus, we cannot say, as a matter of law, that Hanson’s tort claims against Cable were “unrelated to and outside the course and scope” of their employment in the League, or did not relate sufficiently to the professional relationship of Hanson and the Raiders so as to fall outside the employment contract cl | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Laguna Publishing Co. v. Golden Rain Foundation
green
2 sentences2004Additionally, there is no cause of action for ‘tortious nonrenewal of an employment contract in violation of public policy.’ Id. at 45-46.” 2 The trial court denied summary adjudication on the state constitutional claim on the ground that Laguna Publishing Co. v. Golden Rain Foundation (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 816 [ 182 Cal.Rptr. 813 ] (Laguna) allows a tort action for damages for violation of the free expression clause of article I, section 2, of the California Constitution, and although the evidence strongly suggested Motevalli’s insubordination, not her exercise of free speech, was the princip 2004Additionally, there is no cause of action for ‘tortious nonrenewal of an employment contract in violation of public policy.’ Id. at 45-46.” 2 The trial court denied summary adjudication on the state constitutional claim on the ground that Laguna Publishing Co. v. Golden Rain Foundation (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 816 [ 182 Cal.Rptr. 813 ] (Laguna) allows a tort action for damages for violation of the free expression clause of article I, section 2, of the California Constitution, and although the evidence strongly suggested Motevalli’s insubordination, not her exercise of free speech, was the princip | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
green
1 sentence2004The nonrenewal is not actionable under Tameny, supra, 27 Cal.3d 167 , because no cause of action exists for tortious nonrenewal of an employment contract in violation of public policy. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Dryer v. Los Angeles Rams
green
1 sentence1997Dryer v. Los Angeles Rams, supra, 40 Cal.3d 406 involved an employment contract with a standard provision calling for binding arbitration under the terms of the applicable collective bargaining agreement between the players’ union and management of the National Football League. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Sullivan v. Compton
green
2 sentences1949(Sullivan v. Compton, 61 Cal.App. 2d 500 [ 143 P.2d 357 ].) Here the gravamen of the action is the breach of the alleged agreement to divide profits, and all elements of that cause of action have been pleaded. 1949(Sullivan v. Compton, 61 Cal.App. 2d 500 [ 143 P.2d 357 ].) Here the gravamen of the action is the breach of the alleged agreement to divide profits, and all elements of that cause of action have been pleaded. | 1 | 1949–1949 |
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.