9,005 employment law court rulings from public federal records (1880–2026)
Breach of employment contract claims arise when an employer violates the terms of a written or implied employment agreement. This may include violations of compensation terms, non-compete agreements, severance provisions, or implied promises of continued employment. These cases examine the existence and terms of the contract and whether a material breach occurred.
Employers most frequently appearing in breach of contract rulings.
arbitration agreement, unconscionability, waiver of a jury trial, scope of arbitration
Court-ordered dissolution of PLLC accounting and distribution appointment of referee procedures used by referee summary judgment
R.C. 2307.91 et seq., Ohio Asbestos Reform Act, Federal Employers' Liability Act ("FELA"), 45 U.S.C. Sec. 51, et. seq., railroad worker, competent medical authority, substantial occupational exposure to asbestos. Viewed in a light most favorable to claimant pursuant to R.C. 2307.92, the trial court properly denied railroad employers' motion for administrative dismissal of employee's claim under the Ohio Asbestos Reform Act and FELA. The Ohio Asbestos Reform Act's prima facie requirements are procedural, not substantive, in nature. Appellee, a smoker suffering from cancer who claims railroad asbestos exposure during employment is a substantial cause of his impairment, must provide substantiation from a competent medical authority. Asbestos exposure is not required to be the sole or predominant cause, but a "predominate" cause, i.e., a substantial factor. A trial court is not precluded from considering supplemental medical evidence offered to support the prima facie case as the rules of evidence are relaxed in administrative proceedings.
LABOR UNIONS - R.C. 4117.03(A)(5) App.R. 4(B)(5) pursuant to 11th Dist. Loc.R. 3(D)(2) an appellant must attach a copy of the judgment entry appealed to the notice of appeal once an employee subject to a collective bargaining agreement authorizes his or her union to pursue a grievance, the cause of action belongs to the union and the employee lacks standing to prosecute the case R.C. 4117.10(A).
Breach of contract declaratory judgment motion to dismiss summary judgment motion to strike- The court found exhibits were not "mediation communications" under R.C. 2710.01 and denied defendant's motion to strike. Plaintiff sought unpaid balance of construction contract and declaration that its work conformed to the contract and/or that it was not responsible for any additional work. The Court initially determined that it had subject matter and personal jurisdiction. The Court determined that an issue of fact existed regarding the accrual of plaintiff's claims and, therefore, when the statute of limitations began to run. The Court further determined that plaintiff did not unreasonably delay in bringing its claims and that the doctrine of laches did not bar plaintiff's claims. The Court also held that plaintiff's claim seeking a declaration of the parties' rights under the contract asserted a proper declaratory judgment claim while any claim seeking a determination of proximate cause did not. Finally, the Court found that plaintiff did not fail to join necessary parties and ultimately denied defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Trial court abused its discretion in denying motion for default on claim for breach of independent contractor agreement where plaintiff's complaint stated facts going to each element of his claim and defendant LLC failed to answer through licensed attorney. Default judgment was properly denied as to defamation claim because plaintiff's claim relied on self-republication doctrine which has not been adopted in Ohio.
Preliminary injunction Interlocutory appeal Substantial right Employment Agreement
Trade secrets menus recipes confidentiality agreement agreement not to compete. Former employees did not misappropriate trade secrets by opening competing business that used similar menu items to restaurant where they had previously worked because there were significant differences in how those menu items were prepared and the menu items were common to many restaurants. Plaintiffs could not avoid summary judgment because they could not prove defendants had possession of, or used, plaintiffs' customer database.
Showing 3,951–4,000 of 9,005 rulings · Page 80 of 181
Explore rulings by type of employment law claim.
Check which employment laws may protect you — free, private, and no sign-up required.
Data sourced from public federal court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes extracted using AI analysis. This information is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The classification of claim types is based on automated analysis and may not reflect the full scope of each case.