Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Sorensen v. Comm Tek, Inc.

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided October 1, 1990No. 17890Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBistline, Justice

I applaud the Court’s reassessment of the Metcalf “prospective only” ruling. No rational reason prevents or limits the application of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing to employment contracts. Although our initial opinion for the Court denied Sorensen all relief, today’s modification does provide Sorensen his day in court and justice may be done.

The decision to apply Metcalf to all cases which had been filed when Metcalf was decided, and of course to all new appeals, is appropriate for two reasons. Where two or more plaintiffs have initiated actions which are similarly…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Sandstrom v. MontanaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Desist v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. Hankerson v. North CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  4. Metcalf v. Intermountain Gas Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1989
  5. State v. OwensIdaho Supreme Court · 1980

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

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

Powered by the Exa API