Moore v. La-Z-Boy, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that plaintiffs bear the burden of proof as to the existence of a contract (citing Canney v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 228 N.E.2d 723, 727 (Mass. 1967))
• explaining that plaintiffs bear the burden of proof as to the existence of a contract (citing Canney v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 228 N.E.2d 723, 727 (Mass. 1967))
• granting summary judgment on tortious interference claim because former employee was an at-will employee, there was no contract to interfere with and plaintiffs have not produced a written non-competition agreement
• \Whether a purported contract contains the necessary elements for enforceability is (ordinarily) a question of law reserved for the court.\
• “Whether a purported contract contains the necessary elements for enforceability is (ordinarily) a question of law reserved for the court.”
• “Whether a purported contract contains the necessary elements for enforceability is (ordinarily) a question of law reserved for the court.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).