Carter v. Kansas City, Fort Scott & Memphis Railroad

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that “a litigant must allege more than a general statement that her discharge violated public policy,” and specifying that “[t]he complaint must set forth specific allegations that would enable the court to determine what public policy was violated.”
• affirming lower court dismissal of defamation claim where the plaintiff “pled [the defendant] made and published statements that insinuated she was unfit in her business and profession”
• dismissing defamation claim where Plaintiff alleged Defendant “made and published statements that insinuated she was unfit in her business and profession” due to failure to “set forth with any specificity what the alleged false statements were”
• upholding dismissal of a defamation claim where the plaintiff “did not set forth with any specificity what the alleged false statements were,” did not allege that the statements “were unprivileged,” and did not assert to whom they were made
• “[Otherwise,] any employee could circumvent the employment at-will doctrine by merely asserting a termination was retaliatory in violation of a clear mandate of public policy and contend it was a novel issue in this state.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).