DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in New Hampshire that cite Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co., 316 A.2d 549.

21 citing documents.

  • Clark v. N.H. Dep't of Emp't Sec. 201 A.3d 652 N.H. 2019
    Aranson, 140 N.H. at 364, 671 A.2d 1023; see also Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co., 114 N.H. 130, 133, 316 A.2d 549 (1974).
  • Michelle Clark v. New Hampshire Department of Employment Security & a. N.H. 2019
    Aranson, 140 N.H. at 364; see also Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co., 114 N.H. 130, 133 (1974).
  • J & M Lumber & Construction Co. v. Smyjunas 20 A.3d 947 N.H. 2011
    Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co., 114 N.H. 130, 132, 133 (1974).
  • Porter v. City of Manchester 849 A.2d 103 N.H. 2004
    Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co., 114 N.H. 130, 134 (1974) (contract action); Cloutier, 121 N.H. at 920 (tort action).
  • Harper v. Healthsource New Hampshire, Inc. 674 A.2d 962 N.H. 1996
    Like most courts, we have carved out exceptions to the common law employment-at-will doctrine, noting that in some cases “the employer’s interest in running his business as he sees fit must be balanced against the interest of the employee in maintaining his employment, and the public’s interest in maintaining a proper balance between the two.” Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co., 114 N.H. 130, 133, 316 A.2d 549, 551 (1974); see, e.g., Lampe v. Presbyterian Med.
  • Centronics Corp. v. Genicom Corp. 562 A.2d 187 N.H. 1989
    Under the rule evolved from Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co., 114 N.H. 130, 316 A.2d 549 (1974) through Howard v. Dorr Woolen Company, 120 N.H. 295, 414 A.2d 1273 (1980), and Cloutier v. A.& P. Tea Co., Inc., 121 N.H. 915, 436 A.2d 1140 (1981), an employer violates an implied term of a contract for employment at-will by firing an employee out of malice or bad faith in retaliation for
  • Richardson v. Chevrefils 552 A.2d 89 N.H. 1988
    In the memorandum accompanying his own motion for partial summary judgment, the plaintiff argued that he had a protected property interest in his job because even an employee at will has a right to expect he will not be fired for reasons “against public policy,” citing Cloutier v. A & P Tea Co., Inc., 121 N.H. 915, 436 A.2d 1140 (1981) and Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co., 114 N.H. 130, 316 A.2d 549 (1974).
  • Panto v. Moore Business Forms, Inc. 547 A.2d 260 N.H. 1988
    at 919-20, 436 A.2d at 1142; see also Howard v. Dorr Woolen Company, 120 N.H. 295, 414 A.2d 1273 (1980); Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co., 114 N.H. 130, 316 A.2d 549 (1974); RSA chapters 275 and 354-A.
  • Cilley v. New Hampshire Ball Bearings, Inc. 514 A.2d 818 N.H. 1986
    Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co., 114 N.H. 130, 316 A.2d 549 (1974).
  • Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hospital 710 P.2d 1025 Ariz. 1985
  • Bergeron v. Travelers Insurance 480 A.2d 42 N.H. 1984
    Memorandum Opinion The sole issue in this interlocutory appeal from a ruling of the Superior Court (Pappagianis, J.) is whether an employee, alleging to have been wrongfully discharged from her employment after this court’s decision in Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co., 114 N.H. 130, 316 A.2d 549 (1974), but prior to our decision in Howard v. Dorr Woolen Company, 120 N.H. 295, 414 A.2d 1273 (1980), has the burden of proving that the discharge violated public policy.
  • Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hospital 714 P.2d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. 1984
  • Leikvold v. Valley View Community Hospital 688 P.2d 170 Ariz. 1984
  • Cloutier v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 436 A.2d 1140 N.H. 1981
    [I]t is an indefinite hiring and is determinable at the will of either party, and in this respect there is no distinction between domestic and other servants.” H. G. Wood, A Treatise on the Law of Master and Servant § 136, at 283-84 (2d ed. 1886); see Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co., 114 N.H. 130, 136, 316 A.2d 549, 553 (1974) (Grimes, J., dissenting).
  • Daniel v. Magma Copper Co. 620 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. 1980
  • Howard v. Dorr Woolen Co. 414 A.2d 1273 N.H. 1980
    He argues that such allegations constitute a discharge motivated by bad faith, malice, or retaliation, and warrant recovery for breach of contract under Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co., 114 N.H. 130, 316 A.2d 549 (1974).
  • Tice v. Thomson 414 A.2d 1284 N.H. 1980
    The plaintiff finally argues that his firing was unlawful under Monge v. Beebe Rubber Company, 114 N.H. 130, 316 A.2d 549 (1974), because it was motivated by bad faith.
  • Lawton v. Great Southwest Fire Insurance 392 A.2d 576 N.H. 1978
    Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co., 114 N.H. 130, 134, 316 A.2d 549, 552 (1974); Dunn & Sons, Inc. v. Paragon Homes of New England, Inc., 110 N.H. 215, 218, 265 A.2d 5, 8 (1970).
  • Larsen v. Motor Supply Co. 573 P.2d 907 Ariz. Ct. App. 1977
  • Desmarais v. State of New Hampshire Personnel Commission 378 A.2d 1361 N.H. 1977
    See, e.g., Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co., 114 N.H. 130, 133, 316 A.2d 549, 551-52 (1974).
  • Foote v. State Personnel Commission 355 A.2d 412 N.H. 1976
    the employer’s interest in running his business as he sees fit must be balanced against the interest of the employee in maintaining his employment, and the public’s interest in maintaining a proper balance between the two.” Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co., 114 N.H. 130, 133, 316 A.2d 549, 551 (1974).