Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Magnan v. Anaconda Industries, Inc.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided July 3, 1984No. 12132Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partParskey, J.

In Sheets v. Teddy’s Frosted Foods, Inc., 179 Conn. 471, 427 A.2d 385 (1980), we held that an employee at will may not be discharged for a reason whose impropriety is derived from some important violation of public policy. Sheets involved a new application of an old common law principle, namely, that contractual provisions which offend public policy will not be enforced. Hanford v. Connecticut Fair Assn., 92 Conn. 621, 623, 103 A. 838 (1918); Smith v. Crockett Co., 85 Conn. 282, 287, 82 A. 569 (1912). The second count of the complaint in this case is based on the principle-ef law decided in…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Sheets v. Teddy's Frosted Foods, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
  2. Pugh v. See's Candies, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1981
  3. Smith v. David B. Crockett Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1912
  4. Hanford v. Connecticut Fair Ass'nSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1918

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

Powered by the Exa API