Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Leikvold v. Valley View Community Hospital, 688 P.2d 170.

62 citing documents.

Trade Printers v. Pdf Print Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Trade Printers v. Pdf Print Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Aubuchon v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Aubuchon v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Slater v. Abor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Slater v. Abor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
As the lawsuit continues, however, the superior court might conclude that ABOR’s administrative policies represented implied terms of Dr. Slater’s employment, akin to personnel manuals that “can become part of employment contracts,” or that these policies represented an actionable standard of conduct based on their purpose, -101 (2000) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 285).2 2 We confine our review to the issues advanced on appeal, and therefore do not address the affirmative defens
Mesa Airlines v. Condron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Mesa Airlines v. Condron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Hosp., ); (stating that a personnel manual will not turn an at-will relationship into a relationship for a definite term if the employer includes clear and conspicuous language that informs employees their positions are terminable at-will).
Roberson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 44 P.3d 164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Roberson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 44 P.3d 164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Hosp., , Wagenseller, 147 Ariz. at 382-83 , 710 P.2d at 1037-38 .
Taylor v. Graham County Chamber of Commerce 33 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Taylor v. Graham County Chamber of Commerce 33 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
the EPA was enacted, our supreme court recognized exceptions to the at-will presumption based not only on public policy grounds but also on theories of “implied-in-fact” contracts and the “implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.” See Wagenseller, 147 Ariz. at 381, 385 , 710 P.2d at 1036, 1040 ; see also Wagner, 150 Ariz. at 85 , 722 P.2d at 253 ; , 545-46 n. 1, , 171-72 n. 1 (1984).
Demasse v. ITT Corp. 984 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1999
Demasse v. ITT Corp. 984 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1999
Demasse v. ITT Corp. 984 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1999
Once a , as a result of the employee’s legitimate expectations and reliance on the employer’s handbook, may the employer thereafter unilaterally change the handbook policy so as to permit the employer to layoff employees without regard to seniority?
Demasse v. ITT Corp. 984 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1999
Once a , as a result of the employee's legitimate expectations and reliance on the employer's handbook, may the employer thereafter unilaterally change the handbook policy so as to permit the employer to layoff employees without regard to seniority?
Hart v. Seven Resorts Inc. 947 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Hart v. Seven Resorts Inc. 947 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Wagenseller, 147 Ariz. at 381-82 , 710 P.2d at 1036-37 ; , Duncan v. St.
Hall Family Properties, Ltd. v. Gosnell Development Corp. 916 P.2d 1098 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Hall Family Properties, Ltd. v. Gosnell Development Corp. 916 P.2d 1098 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Duncan v. St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center 903 P.2d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Duncan v. St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center 903 P.2d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Hosp., , , the court concluded: The dispute centers around two letters from Joseph J. DeSilva, dated May 25, 1989 and November 3, 1989 that arguably create the inference that the new position for which [Duncan] was hired was to last “the next
Carroll v. Robinson 874 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Carroll v. Robinson 874 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Wagenseller, 147 Ariz. at 375 , 710 P.2d at 1030
Mullins v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 851 P.2d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Mullins v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 851 P.2d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Appellant argues that the Statute of Frauds does not apply because: (1) the employment contract could have been fully performed within one year; (2) , , and, (3) the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel should be invoked to preclude the application of the Statute of Frauds.
Burkons v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. of Cal. 813 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1991
Burkons v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. of Cal. 813 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1991
Ridara Livestock Co. v. Agricultural Prod.
Leo Eisenberg & Co., Inc. v. Payson 785 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1989
Leo Eisenberg & Co., Inc. v. Payson 785 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1989
Douglas v. Wilson 774 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Douglas v. Wilson 774 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Smith v. Payne 753 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1988
Smith v. Payne 753 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1988
Rule 56(c), Ariz.R.Civ.P., 16 A.R.S.
Valles v. Arizona Board of Regents 743 P.2d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Valles v. Arizona Board of Regents 743 P.2d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Loffa v. Intel Corp. 738 P.2d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Loffa v. Intel Corp. 738 P.2d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
the Arizona Supreme Court considered the circumstances when employer disciplinary procedures reflected in personnel manuals, employer statements, and other employer practices modify what otherwise would be an employment-at-will relationship by limiting the employer’s ability to terminate employm
Ford v. Revlon, Inc. 734 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1987
Ford v. Revlon, Inc. 734 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1987
(suit by at-will employee against employer for breach of employment contract and defamation).
Wagner v. City of Globe 722 P.2d 250 Ariz. 1986
Wagner v. City of Globe 722 P.2d 250 Ariz. 1986
545-546 n. 1, , 171-172 n. 1 (1984).
Duke v. Arizona Board of Regents 721 P.2d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Duke v. Arizona Board of Regents 721 P.2d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hospital 710 P.2d 1025 Ariz. 1985
Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hospital 710 P.2d 1025 Ariz. 1985
Did the trial court err, , when it determined as a matter of law that the terms of Scottsdale Memorial Hospital’s personnel policy manual were not part of the employment contract?
Hoag v. Valley National Bank 708 P.2d 1328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Hoag v. Valley National Bank 708 P.2d 1328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Jeski v. American Express Co. 708 P.2d 110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Jeski v. American Express Co. 708 P.2d 110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
it was held that representations made by an employer in a personnel or policies manual may become part of an employment contract, and may modify the employer’s right to terminate an otherwise at-will employee.