Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

DeMuth v. Miller

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 11, 1995Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

JOHNSON, Judge,

concurring and dissenting.. In this action for breach of an employment contract, Daniel C. Miller appeals from the judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of Donald L. DeMuth.

On appeal, Miller argues that the trial court erred in (1) allowing DeMuth to present his contract claim despite De-Muth’s judicial admission that the employment agreement expired before Miller’s termination; (2) enforcing the contingent note payable clause because it was either a penalty clause and, thus, void as against public policy,' or an unreasonably restrictive covenant; and (3) using its police…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. Flagg Bros., Inc. v. BrooksSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  3. Robinson v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  4. Heller v. Doe Ex Rel. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  5. Shelley v. KraemerSupreme Court of the United States · 1948

24 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