Alford v. Life Savers, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision. The 15 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Dorner v. Polsinelli, White, Vardeman & Shalton, P.C. (District Court, D. Kansas 1994)
- Schriner v. Meginnis Ford Co. (Neb. 1988)
- Ambroz v. Cornhusker Square Ltd. (Neb. 1987)
- Southwest Gas Corp. v. Ahmad (Nev. 1983)
- Vice v. Conoco, Inc. (10th Cir. 1998)
- Huegerich v. IBP, Inc. (Iowa 1996)
- Bagwell v. Peninsula Regional Medical Center (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1995)
- Beam v. Concord Hospitality, Inc. (District Court, D. Kansas 1994)
- Midwest Knitting Mills, Inc. v. United States (District Court, E.D. Wisconsin 1990)
- Polson v. Davis (10th Cir. 1990)
- Jeffers v. Bishop Clarkson Memorial Hospital (Neb. 1986)
- Smith v. City of Omaha (Neb. 1985)
- Mueller v. Union Pacific Railroad (Neb. 1985)
- Morris v. Lutheran Medical Center (Neb. 1983)
- Serafin v. City of Lexington, Nebraska (United States District Court, Nebraska 1982)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
The plaintiff appeals from an order dismissing the amended petition after a demurrer to the amended petition had been sustained.
The amended petition alleged that the plaintiff had been employed by the defendant as a salesman. On February 2, 1978, the plaintiffs employment was terminated by his supervisor, an employee of the defendant, allegedly without notice and without cause. The amended petition further alleged that the defendant was negligent in failing to exercise proper supervision and control over the plaintiffs supervisor; in failing to ascertain whether the reasons given for the termination of the plaintiffs employment were truthful; in failing to *442 ascertain whether the termination of the plaintiffs employment violated company policy; in failing to ascertain whether a valid reason existed for termination of the plaintiffs employment; and in failing to ascertain whether the plaintiffs supervisor properly carried out his duty as supervisor. The plaintiff prayed for damages in the amount of $31,815.
There is no allegation in the petition that the plaintiff had any right of continued employment. When the employment is not for a definite term, and there are no contractual or statutory restrictions upon the right of discharge, an employer may lawfully discharge an employee whenever and for whatever cause he chooses, without incurring liability. Mau v. Omaha Nat. Bank, 207 Neb. 308, 299 N.W.2d 147 (1980). See, also, Stewart v. North Side Produce Co., 197 Neb. 245, 248 N.W.2d 37 (1976).
The amended petition failed to state a cause of action and was subject to demurrer. The judgment dismissing the amended petition is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.