Miller v. Riata Cadillac Company

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that if a contract can, from the terms of the agreement, be performed within one year, it is not within the statute of frauds
• where contract to pay employee bonus after about one year could theoretically be performed before year expired, statute of frauds did not apply
• \the fact [that] a bonus cannot be ascertained and paid until after the year in which services were rendered does not bring the contract within the Statute of Frauds\
• contract to pay employee bonus after one year could theoretically be performed before year expired
• where contract to pay employee a bonus after approximately one year could theoretically be performed before the year expired, statute of frauds did not apply
• contract to pay employee bonus after approximately one year could theoretically be performed before year expired

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).