McCarthy v. Louisville Cartage Co., Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an employer was not entitled to a directed verdict where “[t]he employer [could] reasonably foresee that [the employee’s] continuation in employment ha[d] been induced”
• promissory estoppel “is not founded upon a legal duty and a breach thereof; but rather, it is based upon a mere promise and reliance on that promise”
• “The whole theory of a promissory estoppel action is that detrimental reliance becomes a substitute for consideration under the facts of a given case.”
• “The whole theory of a promissory estoppel action is that detrimental reliance becomes a substitute for consideration under the facts of a given case.”
• employer promised to provide life insurance coverage to employee

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).