Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Holloway v. Conger
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Decided February 23, 1990No. Nos. 89-5051, 89-5103Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHeaney, Senior Circuit Judge
Under South Dakota law, Stoekgrowers’ oral promises to Holloway may have ere-ated an employment contract. I would reverse the summary judgment in favor of Stoekgrowers.1
Holloway alleges that he resigned his position as Chief Brand Inspector in conjunction with Stoekgrowers’ promise that he would be given the position back shortly thereafter. Plaintiff’s Statement of Material Facts, paragraph 1, (November 30, 1988); Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment at 3 (September 27, 1988);2 Complaint paragraph XV (February 11,1988). The majority rejects this allegation as…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. O'NEALSupreme Court of Virginia · 1982
- Larson v. Kreiser's, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1988
- Harry E. Hall v. Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service (Department of Treasury)Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1986
- Wm. Collins, Inc. v. South Dakota State Board of TransportationSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1978