6 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1946–2005 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arkansas 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jackson v. Kinark Corp.green2 sentences1984Griffin v. Erickson, 277 Ark. 433 , 642 S.W.2d 308 (1982); Jackson v. Kinark Corp., 282 Ark. 548 , 669 S.W.2d 898 (1984) That part of the complaint set out above does not allege any facts which bring the plaintiff within any of the proposed exceptions to the employment at will doctrine. 1984Griffin v. Erickson, 277 Ark. 433 , 642 S.W.2d 308 (1982); Jackson v. Kinark Corp., 282 Ark. 548 , 669 S.W.2d 898 (1984) That part of the complaint set out above does not allege any facts which bring the plaintiff within any of the proposed exceptions to the employment at will doctrine. | 1 | 3 |
Gaulden v. Emerson Electric Co.green2 sentences1991See Gaulden v. Emerson Electric Co., 284 Ark. 149 , 680 S.W.2d 92 (1984), and Jackson v. Kinark Corp., 282 Ark. 548 , 669 S.W.2d 898 (1984). 1991See Gaulden v. Emerson Electric Co., 284 Ark. 149 , 680 S.W.2d 92 (1984), and Jackson v. Kinark Corp., 282 Ark. 548 , 669 S.W.2d 898 (1984). | 1 | 2 |
MBM Co., Inc. v. Councegreen2 sentences1987On appeal Ms. Gladden proposes that the employment at will doctrine be modified "to allow a written contract of employment to be enforced which limits the right of an employer to discharge an employee, in the absence of a definite term of employment." Discussion It might be well to note at the outset that the claim of wrongful discharge in the context of these cases is readily distinguishable from M.B.M. v. Counce, 268 Ark. 269 , 596 S.W.2d 681 (1981) where, without deciding the issue, we conceded merit in the argument that where an employee is discharged in violation of a well established pub 1987On appeal Ms. Gladden proposes that the employment at will doctrine be modified "to allow a written contract of employment to be enforced which limits the right of an employer to discharge an employee, in the absence of a definite term of employment." Discussion It might be well to note at the outset that the claim of wrongful discharge in the context of these cases is readily distinguishable from M.B.M. v. Counce, 268 Ark. 269 , 596 S.W.2d 681 (1981) where, without deciding the issue, we conceded merit in the argument that where an employee is discharged in violation of a well established pub | 1 | 1 |
Harvey v. Eastman Kodak Co.green2 sentences1984See Harvey v. Eastman Kodak Co., 271 Ark. 783 , 610 S.W.2d 582 (1981). 1984See Harvey v. Eastman Kodak Co., 271 Ark. 783 , 610 S.W.2d 582 (1981). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Oxford
green
2 sentences1989In Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Oxford, 294 Ark. 239 , 743 S.W.2d 380 (1988), we adopted the rule that if an employee is discharged for exercising a statutory right, or for performing a duty required by law or the reasons for the discharge was in violation of some other well established public policy, we would recognize the employee’s wrongful discharge claim as an exception to the employment at will doctrine. 1989In Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Oxford, 294 Ark. 239 , 743 S.W.2d 380 (1988), we adopted the rule that if an employee is discharged for exercising a statutory right, or for performing a duty required by law or the reasons for the discharge was in violation of some other well established public policy, we would recognize the employee’s wrongful discharge claim as an exception to the employment at will doctrine. | 2 | 1989–1991 |
Griffin v. Erickson
green
2 sentences1987In Griffin v. Erickson, 277 Ark. 433 , 642 S.W.2d 308 (1982) dictum of the opinion stated that the employment at will doctrine is deeply embedded in our case law: See St. 1987In Griffin v. Erickson, 277 Ark. 433 , 642 S.W.2d 308 (1982) dictum of the opinion stated that the employment at will doctrine is deeply embedded in our case law: See St. | 2 | 1984–1987 |
Wagner v. Sperry Univac, Division of Sperry Rand Corp.
green
1 sentence2005Id. at 571-72 , 810 S.W.2d at 913 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Crain Industries, Inc. v. Cass
green
1 sentence2005Id. at 571-72 , 810 S.W.2d at 913 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Smith v. American Greetings Corp.
green
2 sentences1991With these two narrow changes, the court reaffirmed its adherence to the employment at will doctrine, and later reiterated that reaffirmation in Smith, 304 Ark. at 600 , 804 S.W.2d at 686 . 1991With these two narrow changes, the court reaffirmed its adherence to the employment at will doctrine, and later reiterated that reaffirmation in Smith, 304 Ark. at 600 , 804 S.W.2d at 686 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Gladden v. Arkansas Children's Hospital
green
2 sentences1991With those two modifications we reaffirm the at will doctrine. [ 292 Ark. at 136 , 728 S.W.2d at 505 ] We thus reaffirmed the employment at will doctrine except where there is an agreement that the employment is for a specified time, in which case firing may be only for cause, or where an employer's employment manual contains an express provision stating that the employee will only be dismissed for cause and that provision is relied on by the employee. 1991With those two modifications we reaffirm the at will doctrine. [ 292 Ark. at 136 , 728 S.W.2d at 505 ] We thus reaffirmed the employment at will doctrine except where there is an agreement that the employment is for a specified time, in which case firing may be only for cause, or where an employer's employment manual contains an express provision stating that the employee will only be dismissed for cause and that provision is relied on by the employee. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Proctor v. East Central Arkansas EOC
neutral
2 sentences1991Smith v. American Greetings Corp., 304 Ark. 596 , 804 S.W.2d 683 (1991); Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Oxford, 294 Ark. 239 , 743 S.W.2d 380 (1988); Gladden v. Arkansas Children's Hospital, 292 Ark. 130 , 728 S.W.2d 501 (1987); Proctor v. East Central Arkansas EOC, 291 Ark. 265 , 724 S.W.2d 163 (1987); Bryant v. Southern Screw Machine Products Co., 288 Ark. 602 , 707 S.W.2d 321 (1986). 1991Smith v. American Greetings Corp., 304 Ark. 596 , 804 S.W.2d 683 (1991); Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Oxford, 294 Ark. 239 , 743 S.W.2d 380 (1988); Gladden v. Arkansas Children's Hospital, 292 Ark. 130 , 728 S.W.2d 501 (1987); Proctor v. East Central Arkansas EOC, 291 Ark. 265 , 724 S.W.2d 163 (1987); Bryant v. Southern Screw Machine Products Co., 288 Ark. 602 , 707 S.W.2d 321 (1986). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Bryant v. Southern Screw MacHine Products Co.
green
2 sentences1991Smith v. American Greetings Corp., 304 Ark. 596 , 804 S.W.2d 683 (1991); Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Oxford, 294 Ark. 239 , 743 S.W.2d 380 (1988); Gladden v. Arkansas Children's Hospital, 292 Ark. 130 , 728 S.W.2d 501 (1987); Proctor v. East Central Arkansas EOC, 291 Ark. 265 , 724 S.W.2d 163 (1987); Bryant v. Southern Screw Machine Products Co., 288 Ark. 602 , 707 S.W.2d 321 (1986). 1991Smith v. American Greetings Corp., 304 Ark. 596 , 804 S.W.2d 683 (1991); Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Oxford, 294 Ark. 239 , 743 S.W.2d 380 (1988); Gladden v. Arkansas Children's Hospital, 292 Ark. 130 , 728 S.W.2d 501 (1987); Proctor v. East Central Arkansas EOC, 291 Ark. 265 , 724 S.W.2d 163 (1987); Bryant v. Southern Screw Machine Products Co., 288 Ark. 602 , 707 S.W.2d 321 (1986). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Biddle v. Riley
green
2 sentences1946In Biddle et al., Receivers, v. Riley, 118 Ark. 206 , 176 S. W. 134 , L. 1946In Biddle et al., Receivers, v. Riley, 118 Ark. 206 , 176 S. W. 134 , L. | 1 | 1946–1946 |
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.