7 Massachusetts opinions name it 3 courts 1993–2006 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Massachusetts 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kourouvacilis v. General Motors Corp.green1 sentence1998See Kourouvacilis v. General Motors Corp., 410 Mass. 706, 714 (1991). | 1 | 1 |
Wright v. Shriners Hospital for Crippled Childrengreen1 sentence1995See King v. Driscoll, 418 Mass. 576, 583 (1994) (“internal administration, policy, functioning, and other matters of an organization cannot be the basis for public policy exception”); Wright v. Shriners Hosp. for Crippled Children, 412 Mass. 469, 474 (1992); Smith-Pfeffer v. Superintendent of the Walter E. | 1 | 1 |
King v. Driscollgreen1 sentence1995See King v. Driscoll, 418 Mass. 576, 583 (1994) (“internal administration, policy, functioning, and other matters of an organization cannot be the basis for public policy exception”); Wright v. Shriners Hosp. for Crippled Children, 412 Mass. 469, 474 (1992); Smith-Pfeffer v. Superintendent of the Walter E. | 1 | 1 |
Balla v. Gambro, Inc.green2 sentences1995In Balla v. Gambro, Inc., 145 Ill. 2d 492, 501 (1991), the Supreme Court of Illinois concluded “that, generally, in-house counsel do not have a claim ... of retaliatory discharge.” 8 The court based its decision on the destructive impact recognition of the claim would have on the attorney-client relationship that exists between an employer and in-house counsel, id., and on its conclusion that the policy of preserving public health and safety, the basis for recognizing an employee’s wrongful discharge claim, is protected adequately without recognition of the claim by the attorney’s obligations 1995In Balla v. Gambro, Inc., 145 Ill. 2d 492, 501 (1991), the Supreme Court of Illinois concluded “that, generally, in-house counsel do not have a claim ... of retaliatory discharge.” 8 The court based its decision on the destructive impact recognition of the claim would have on the attorney-client relationship that exists between an employer and in-house counsel, id., and on its conclusion that the policy of preserving public health and safety, the basis for recognizing an employee’s wrongful discharge claim, is protected adequately without recognition of the claim by the attorney’s obligations | 1 | 1 |
DeRose v. Putnam Management Co.green1 sentence1993See DeRose v. Putnam Management Co., 398 Mass. 205, 210 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
GTE Products Corp. v. Stewart
green
2 sentences2006Id. at 33 . 1996Recently, in GTE Products Corp. v. Stewart, 421 Mass. 22 (1995), the Supreme Judicial Court discussed the circumstances under which in-house counsel may reveal client confidences and secrets in pursuing a wrongful discharge claim. | 2 | 1996–2006 |
Marderosian v. Shamshak
green
1 sentence2005Id. at 337 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Marks v. . Cowdin
green
1 sentence2001Beyond that they could not go.” Ibid. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
General Dynamics Corp. v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence1996Following the reasoning of the Supreme Court of California in General Dynamics Corp. v. Rose, 7 Cal. 4th 1164 (1994), the Court concluded that in-house counsel may pursue a claim where there otherwise would be a right of action had the employee not been a lawyer. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.