Legal Opinion

Cummins v. Mold-In Graphic Systems

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided June 5, 2001No. 1 CA-CV 99-0559PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

GARBARINO, Presiding Judge.

¶ 1 Mold-In Graphic Systems (MIGS) and Michael and Kathleen Stevenson, collectively referred to as the defendants, appeal from the trial court’s denial of the defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law 1 on Sean and Deirdre Cummins’ claim for wrongful discharge under the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine. The plaintiffs cross appeal from the trial court’s dismissal of their claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and punitive damages. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the trial court’s denial of the…

2Cases cited39 opinions

  1. Palmateer v. International Harvester Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1981
  2. Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial HospitalArizona Supreme Court · 1985
  3. Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1980
  4. Susan McKENZIE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1996
  5. Jessica Lind Meeks v. Computer Associates International, a Foreign CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1994

34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Galati v. America West Airlines, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2003
  2. Coffin v. Safeway, Inc.District Court, D. Arizona · 2004
  3. Scorzo v. Az med/stateCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2017

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API