Oliva's Home Corp. v. Deco Truss Co., Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that to count as a “wage,” the employee “must have been promised the particular form of compensation as remuneration for his labor” (emphasis in original)
• recognizing that some courts have allowed an exception for \appeals from a denial of summary judgment after a trial where the summary judgment motion raised a legal issue and did not question the sufficiency of the evidence\
• reasoning that because employer “always retained the discretion” not to grant certain stock options, those stock options did not constitute wages
• reasoning that because employer “always retained the discretion” not to grant certain stock options, those stock options did not constitute wages
• district court’s rulings “stand[ ] as an implicit rejection of [litigant’s] summary judgment argument”
• district court’s rulings “stand[] as an implicit rejection of [litigant’s] summary judgment argument”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).