From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Masek v. Reliance Elec. Co.

Supreme Court of Ohio
May 29, 1991
573 N.E.2d 594 (Ohio 1991)

Opinion

No. 90-1557

Submitted April 24, 1991 —

Decided May 29, 1991.

Employer and employee — Discharge of at-will employee — Promissory estoppel claim will not survive a motion for summary judgment, when.

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 56959.

Sindell, Rubenstein, Einbund, Pavlik, Novak Celebrezze and Lewis Einbund, for appellees.

Baker Hostetler, John H. Wilharm, Jr., Karen B. Newborn and Thomas F. Cooke II, for appellants.

Spater, Gittes, Schulte Kolman, Frederick M. Gittes and Louis A. Jacobs, urging affirmance for amici curiae, 9 to 5, Natl. Assn. of Working Women, and the Ohio Employment Lawyers Assn.

Vorys, Sater, Seymour Pease and James P. Friedt, urging reversal for amicus curiae, the Ohio Manufacturers' Assn.


After reviewing the facts of this case, this cause is reversed on authority of Helmick v. Cincinnati Word Processing, Inc. (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 131, 543 N.E.2d 1212, and the judgment of the trial court is reinstated.

MOYER, C.J., HOLMES, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.

SWEENEY and DOUGLAS, JJ., dissent.


Summaries of

Masek v. Reliance Elec. Co.

Supreme Court of Ohio
May 29, 1991
573 N.E.2d 594 (Ohio 1991)
Case details for

Masek v. Reliance Elec. Co.

Case Details

Full title:MASEK ET AL., APPELLEES, v. RELIANCE ELECTRIC COMPANY ET AL., APPELLANTS

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: May 29, 1991

Citations

573 N.E.2d 594 (Ohio 1991)
573 N.E.2d 594

Citing Cases

Pla v. Cleveland State Univ.

To prevail on a promissory estoppel claim, a plaintiff must establish the following four elements: 1) a…

Juergens v. Strang, Klubnik Assoc., Inc.

"In order to prevail upon a promissory estoppel claim, a movant must demonstrate the following four elements…