Rothrock v. Rothrock Motor Sales, Inc.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Justice BAER.
We granted allowance of appeal to determine whether the Superior Court erred in extending a previously created exception to the at-will employment doctrine.1 For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
The Appellees, Theodore Rothrock (Ted) and Douglas Roth-rock (Doug), father and son, respectively, were employed as at-will employees at Rothrock Motor Sales, Inc. (Motor Sales). Bruce Rothrock (Bruce), Ted’s brother, was Motor Sales’ “owner” and president.2 Ted was Motor Sales’ body shop manager, and Doug worked for Ted as a body shop technician. Accordingly, Ted (the father)…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Geary v. United States Steel Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
- Commonwealth v. CabezaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Moure v. RaeuchleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
- Shick v. ShireySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
- Blackwell v. Com. State Ethics Com'nSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Weaver v. HarpsterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
- Datto v. HarrisonDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2009
- Ross v. Foremost InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
- Krolczyk, G. v. Goddard Systems, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
- Owens v. Lehigh Valley HospitalCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.