About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations [1] (April 2017 through August 2017)

handle is hein.ali/aliemploy0034 and id is 1 raw text is: EMPLOYMENT LAW CHAPTER 1. EXISTENCE OF EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP § 1.01. Conditions for Existence of Employment Relationship C.A.5, 2016. Subsec. (a)(3) and com. (d) quot. in ftn. Attorney brought a § 1983 claim against Texas state-court judge in his individual and official capacities, alleging that defendant refused to allow another justice on the same court to hire him in retaliation for reporting defendant's malfeasance to state authorities, which constituted a violation of his right to exercise free speech under the First Amendment. The district court denied defendant's motion to dismiss. Affirming on interlocutory appeal, this court held, among other things, that plaintiff's speech was protected by the First Amendment because it was not made pursuant to his official duties as a public employee. The court cited Restatement of Employment Law § 1.01 in noting that, whether an employer was entitled to control an employee's speech determined whether that speech was made pursuant to the employee's official duties, and here, plaintiff's supervisor did not ask him or require him to report defendant's alleged misconduct. Anderson v. Valdez, 845 F.3d 580, 596. Ind.App.2016. Subsec. (1) cit. and quot. in ftn. Worker who was injured while working for construction company brought a personal-injury action against company. In a separate action, company's commercial general liability insurer sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend company and no duty to pay any judgment that could be rendered against company, based on a clause in company's policy that excluded coverage for injuries sustained by employees. The trial court consolidated the two actions and granted company's and insurer's motions for summary judgment. This court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in finding, as a matter of law, that plaintiff was company's employee at the time he was injured and that he was required to pursue a claim for benefits under Indiana's Workers' Compensation Act. The court cited Restatement of Employment Law § 1.01 for factors used in distinguishing between an employee and an independent businessperson. Vinup v. Joe's Const., LLC, 64 N.E.3d 885, 893. CHAPTER 3. EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS: COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS § 3.02. Bonuses and Other Incentive Compensation N.Y.Sup.Ct.App.Div.2016. Com. (d) quot. in conc. and diss. op. (citing § 3.02, com. (d), of Prop. Final Draft, 2014, which is now § 3.02, com. (d), of the Official Text). In an employment dispute, employee filed counterclaims against employer, alleging that employer breached an oral promise to pay him a portion of the proceeds from a third party's acquisition of employer. The trial court granted employer's motion to dismiss the counterclaims. This court affirmed, holding that the counterclaims required either reasonable reliance on a promise, a reasonable expectation of compensation, or an inequity, all of which were negated where, as here, the employee received adequate compensation and signed a written 'A L I For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most