5 Idaho opinions name it 1 courts 1990–2009 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 |
|---|---|---|
Edmondson v. Shearer Lumber Productsgreen2 sentences2008"In Idaho, the only general exception to the employment at-will doctrine is that an employer may be liable for wrongful discharge when the motivation for discharge contravenes public policy.” Edmondson v. Shearer Lumber Prods., 139 Idaho 172, 176 , 75 P.3d 733, 737 (2003). 2008"In Idaho, the only general exception to the employment at-will doctrine is that an employer may be liable for wrongful discharge when the motivation for discharge contravenes public policy.” Edmondson v. Shearer Lumber Prods., 139 Idaho 172, 176 , 75 P.3d 733, 737 (2003). | 1 | 1 |
Sorensen v. Comm Tek, Inc.green2 sentences2004Sorensen v. Comm Tek, Inc., 118 Idaho 664, 668 , 799 P.2d 70, 74 (1990). 2004Sorensen v. Comm Tek, Inc., 118 Idaho 664, 668 , 799 P.2d 70, 74 (1990). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mallonee v. State
green
1 sentence2009Id. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Crea v. FMC Corporation
green
2 sentences2004Crea v. FMC Corporation, 135 Idaho 175 , 16 P.3d 272 (2000). 2004Crea v. FMC Corporation, 135 Idaho 175 , 16 P.3d 272 (2000). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Jackson v. Minidoka Irrigation District
green
2 sentences2003MacNeil v. Minidoka Memorial Hosp., supra; Jackson v. Minidoka Irrigation Dist., 98 Idaho 330 , 563 P.2d 54 (1977); Anderson v. Farm Bureau Mut. 2003MacNeil v. Minidoka Memorial Hosp., supra; Jackson v. Minidoka Irrigation Dist., 98 Idaho 330 , 563 P.2d 54 (1977); Anderson v. Farm Bureau Mut. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Metcalf v. Intermountain Gas Co.
green
2 sentences1990In Metcalf v. Intermountain Gas Co., 116 Idaho 622 , 778 P.2d 744 (1989), we stated: As the result of numerous decisions of this Court in recent years, it is now settled law in this state that: "Unless an employee is hired pursuant to a contract which specifies the duration of the employment or limits the reasons for which an employee may be discharged, the employment is at the will of either party and the employer may terminate the relationship at any time for any reason without incurring liability. 1990In Metcalf v. Intermountain Gas Co., 116 Idaho 622 , 778 P.2d 744 (1989), we stated: As the result of numerous decisions of this Court in recent years, it is now settled law in this state that: "Unless an employee is hired pursuant to a contract which specifies the duration of the employment or limits the reasons for which an employee may be discharged, the employment is at the will of either party and the employer may terminate the relationship at any time for any reason without incurring liability. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.