Legal Opinion

Hadfield v. Chesterton

Massachusetts Superior Court

Decided December 4, 2009No. 084382Published

1Opinion of the Court

Fremont-Smith, Thayer, J.

Plaintiff was granted leave to amend after his previous complaint was dismissed. His Wage Act claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and his breach of contract claim for lack of specificity [26 Mass. L. Rptr. 101].

Plaintiffs latest amended complaint (the “complaint”) seeks recovery of compensation, under a theory of promissory estoppel, for his many weeks of unused vacation time while an employee of defendants from 1985 to 2007. Defendants move for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for promissory estoppel.

Plaintiff alleges that he was…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2008
  2. Rhode Island Hospital Trust National Bank v. VaradianMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1995
  3. Hall v. Horizon House Microwave, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1987
  4. Pappas Industrial Parks, Inc. v. PsarrosMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1987
  5. Hadfield v. A.W. Chesterton Co.Massachusetts Superior Court · 2009

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

Powered by the Exa API