Legal Opinion
Asmus v. Pacific Bell
California Supreme Court
Decided June 1, 2000No. S074296PublishedCited by 95 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
CHIN, J.
—We granted the request of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for an answer to the following certified question of law under rule 29.5 of the California Rules of Court:1 “Once an employer’s unilaterally adopted policy—which requires employees to be retained so *6long as a specified condition does not occur—has become a part of the employment contract, may the employer thereafter unilaterally [terminate][2] the policy, even though the specified condition has not occurred?” We conclude the answer to the certified question is yes. An employer may unilaterally…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Foley v. Interactive Data Corp.California Supreme Court · 1988
- Pine River State Bank v. MettilleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
- Torosyan v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- Drennan v. Star Paving Co.California Supreme Court · 1958
- Gaglidari v. Denny's Restaurants, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1991
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by95 opinions
- Rafael Chodos, an Individual v. West Publishing Company, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation Doing Business in California Dba Bancroft-Whitney CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- Oto, L. L.C. v. KhoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2019
- Amanda Sateriale v. R J Reynolds Tobacco CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
- Craig v. Brown & Root, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2000
- Faine Davis v. Nordstrom, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
90 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.