Cited by
Opinions in New Hampshire that cite Cloutier v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 436 A.2d 1140.
-
Melissa Donovan v. Southern New Hampshire University
N.H. 2022
Cloutier v. A. & P. Tea Co., Inc., 121 N.H. 915, 921-22 (1981).
-
Daniel Barry v. New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services & a.
172 A.3d 1062
N.H. 2017
The defendants’ true motivation for terminating the plaintiff could be proven either through direct evidence or through circumstantial evidence, which could include evidence that the defendants’ proffered reasons for the termination were not credible, see Cloutier v. A. & P. Tea Co., Inc., 121 N.H. 915, 921-23 (1981) (analyzing evidence offered by the plaintiff in support of wrongful termination claim).
-
Leeds v. BAE Systems
80 A.3d 366
N.H. 2013
at 406 (reversing summary judgment in favor of employer because a jury could conclude plaintiff was “discharged for refusing to lie and that public policy supports such truthfulness”); Cloutier v. A. & P. Tea Co., Inc., 121 N.H. 915, 923 (1981) (“[W]ith or without the existence of [the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C.
-
State v. Dion
62 A.3d 792
N.H. 2013
Here, the jury, whose judgment best reflects “the prevalent sense of the community,” Cloutier v. A. & P. Tea Co., Inc., 121 N.H. 915, 924 (1981) (quotation omitted), unanimously determined that the defendant’s conduct constituted criminal negligence.
-
J & M Lumber & Construction Co. v. Smyjunas
20 A.3d 947
N.H. 2011
“The rationale underlying Monge is that there is an implied covenant in every contractual relationship that the parties will carry out their obligations in good faith.” Cloutier v. A & P Tea Co., Inc., 121 N.H. 915, 920 (1981).
-
MacKenzie v. Linehan
969 A.2d 385
N.H. 2009
While the court acknowledged that whether the discharge of an employee implicated a public policy is generally a question for the jury, the court reasoned, “[N]o rational fact finder could conclude that [the plaintiff] was fired for performing an act that public policy would encourage or for refusing to do something that public policy would condemn.” See Cloutier v. A & P Tea Co., Inc., 121 N.H. 915, 924 (1981); Short v. School Admin.
-
Porter v. City of Manchester
849 A.2d 103
N.H. 2004
DUGGAN, J. The defendants, City of Manchester (city) and Susan Lafond, appeal a jury verdict in Superior Court (Lynn, J.) awarding the plaintiff, Michael Porter, compensatory and punitive damages for wrongful termination, see Cloutier v. A & P. Tea Co., Inc., 121 N.H. 915 (1981), and violation of 42 U.S.C.
-
Dillman v. New Hampshire College
838 A.2d 1274
N.H. 2003
Cloutier v. A. & P. Tea Co., Inc., 121 N.H. 915, 920 (1981).
- Abraham v. County of Hennepin 639 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 2002
-
Konefal v. Hollis/Brookline Cooperative School District
723 A.2d 30
N.H. 1998
Cloutier v. A. & P. Tea Co., Inc., 121 N.H. 915, 922, 436 A.2d 1140, 1143-44 (1981).
-
Harper v. Healthsource New Hampshire, Inc.
674 A.2d 962
N.H. 1996
In the pure employment context, a common law employment relationship that is terminable by either the employee or the employer at any time is referred to as “at will.” See Cloutier v. A. & P. Tea Co., Inc., 121 N.H. 915, 919, 436 A.2d 1140, 1142 (1981).
-
Arthur v. Holy Rosary Credit Union
656 A.2d 830
N.H. 1995
“A trial court may grant a directed verdict only when the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom, construed most favorably to the party opposing the motion, would not enable a jury to find for that party.” Cloutier v. A. & P. Tea Co., Inc., 121 N.H. 915, 920, 436 A.2d 1140, 1143 (1981) (quotation omitted).
-
Short v. School Administrative Unit No. 16
612 A.2d 364
N.H. 1992
Cloutier v. A. & P. Tea Co., Inc., 121 N.H. 915, 921-22, 436 A.2d 1140, 1143-44 (1981).
-
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 action taken or refused by the employee in consonance with public policy, Cloutier, supra at 921-22, 436 A.2d at 114
-
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
Cloutier v. A. & P. Tea Co., Inc., 121 N.H. 915, 919, 436 A.2d 1140, 1142 (1981).
- Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp. 396 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-
Cilley v. New Hampshire Ball Bearings, Inc.
514 A.2d 818
N.H. 1986
Cloutier v. A. & P. Tea Co., Inc., 121 N.H. 915, 922, 436 A.2d 1140, 1144 (1981).
-
Appeal of Miller
453 A.2d 1269
N.H. 1982
Cloutier v. A. & P. Tea Co., Inc., 121 N.H. 915, 923, 436 A.2d 1140, 1144-45 (1981).
-
Hampton Indoor Tennis Center, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance
451 A.2d 172
N.H. 1982
Cloutier v. A. & P. Tea Co., Inc., 121 N.H. 915, 921, 436 A.2d 1140, 1143 (1981).