7 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Idaho 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 |
|---|---|---|
Thomas v. Medical Center Physicians, P.A.green2 sentences2004Burley argues that both the initial and supplemental jury instructions regarding the public policy exception to the at-will doctrine fail to meet the standard set forth in Thomas v. Medical Center Physicians, 138 Idaho 200 , 61 P.3d 557 (2002), which states, “Once the court defines the public policy, whether the public policy was violated is a question for the jury.” Thomas, 138 Idaho at 209 , 61 P.3d at 564 (emphasis added). 2004Burley argues that both the initial and supplemental jury instructions regarding the public policy exception to the at-will doctrine fail to meet the standard set forth in Thomas v. Medical Center Physicians, 138 Idaho 200 , 61 P.3d 557 (2002), which states, “Once the court defines the public policy, whether the public policy was violated is a question for the jury.” Thomas, 138 Idaho at 209 , 61 P.3d at 564 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Quiring v. Quiringgreen2 sentences2003See Quiring v. Quiring, 130 Idaho 560 , 944 P.2d 695 (1997). 2003See Quiring v. Quiring, 130 Idaho 560 , 944 P.2d 695 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
Lord v. Swire Pacific Holdings, Inc.green2 sentences2003"In the absence of case law or statutory language ..., the Court finds no basis for expanding the Idaho law that defines the public policy exception to the at-will doctrine." Lord v. Swire Pacific Holdings, Inc., 203 F.Supp.2d 1175, 1180 (D.Idaho 2002). 2003“In the absence of case law or statutory language ..., the Court finds no basis for expanding the Idaho law that defines the public policy exception to the at-will doctrine.” Lord v. Swire Pacific Holdings, Inc., 203 F.Supp.2d 1175, 1180 (D.Idaho 2002). | 1 | 1 |
Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hospitalgreen2 sentences1989Were we to adopt such a rule (tort damages), we fear that we would tread perilously close to abolishing completely the at-will doctrine and establishing by judicial fiat the benefits which employees can and should get only through collective bargaining agreements or tenure provisions. 710 P.2d at 1040 (emphasis in original). 1989Were we to adopt such a rule (tort damages), we fear that we would tread perilously close to abolishing completely the at-will doctrine and establishing by judicial fiat the benefits which employees can and should get only through collective bargaining agreements or tenure provisions. 710 P.2d at 1040 (emphasis in original). | 1 | 1 |
Staggie v. Idaho Falls Consolidated Hospitals, Inc.green2 sentences1988See Staggie v. Idaho Falls Consolidated Hospitals, Inc., 110 Idaho 349 , 715 P.2d 1019 (Ct.App.1986). 1988See Staggie v. Idaho Falls Consolidated Hospitals, Inc., 110 Idaho 349 , 715 P.2d 1019 (Ct.App.1986). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sorensen v. Comm Tek, Inc.
green
2 sentences2006Sorensen, 118 Idaho at 668 , 799 P.2d at 74 ____In Sorensen , the Court stated that if the reported conduct constituted a statutory violation, it would ... more likely fall under the protection of the public policy exception to the at-will doctrine. 2006Sorensen, 118 Idaho at 668 , 799 P.2d at 74 ____In Sorensen , the Court stated that if the reported conduct constituted a statutory violation, it would ... more likely fall under the protection of the public policy exception to the at-will doctrine. | 2 | 2002–2006 |
Mitchell v. Zilog, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015Id. 2015Id. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Crea v. FMC Corporation
green
1 sentence2002This Court concluded that “Crea’s claim for wrongful discharge would fall under the public policy exception to the at-will doctrine if facts supporting the claim were established.” Id. at 178 ,16 P.3d at 275. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
MacNeil v. Minidoka Memorial Hospital
green
2 sentences1989MacNeil v. Minidoka Memorial Hospital, 108 Idaho 588 , 701 P.2d 208 (1985); Jackson v. Minidoka Irr. 1989MacNeil v. Minidoka Memorial Hospital, 108 Idaho 588 , 701 P.2d 208 (1985); Jackson v. Minidoka Irr. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.