Maurice Hardie and Randy Johnson, Appellants/cross-Appellees v. Cotter and Company, Appellee/cross-Appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a statement by the employer’s representatives that, if workers voted out the union, the employer would treat them as if a union contract remained in effect, was too indefinite to place restrictions onjob terminations
• finding customer complaints were not hearsay and were properly admitted because the complaints demonstrated the employer’s state of mind when it decided to discharge its employee
• documents offered in wrongful discharge case, not to prove truth of material contained within, but to demonstrate employer’s state of mind, admissible
• “While a personal representative has yet to be substituted as a party in this action, we find it appropriate to dispose of [decedent]’s claims in this opinion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).