DANIEL O'MADIGAN, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, APPELLEE

8th Cir. | 1963-01-21
No. 16913
312 F.2d 250 United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (1963) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the bonus plan's paragraph 8(a) is valid and affirmed the lower court's decision.


Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff sued his former employer, General Motors, for unpaid bonus awards after voluntarily terminating his employment and accepting a job with a co…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Daniel O’Madigan, Jr. (plaintiff), a former employee of General Motors Corporation (defendant), instituted this action to recover certain bonus awards which were made by defendant for future payment under specified contractual conditions, but which were not paid because after having voluntarily terminated his employment, plaintiff later accepted employment with a competitor of defendant. The trial court sustained defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff has appealed.

Diversity of citizenship and the requisite amount establish jurisdiction.

The facts are fully and accurately stated in the opinion filed by the late Judge Weber, E.D.Mo., 202 F.Supp. 190 (1961), and need not be restated here.

Basically, plaintiff’s position is that when the bonus awards were made to him he acquired a vested right therein, and regardless of subsequent events, such as his voluntary termination of employment and his later employment with a competitor of defendant, he was entitled to receive the full amount of the awards. The contention is also advanced that paragraph 8(a) of defendant’s bonus plan is void.

Having analyzed the bonus plan under which the awards were made, having examined the record and briefs of the parties and the authorities upon which they rely, and having carefully reviewed other pertinent authorities, we are satisfied that paragraph 8(a) of the bonus plan is valid and, for the reasons stated in Judge Weber’s opinion with which we are in full accord, we affirm. See and compare: Neuffer v. Bakery and Confectionery Workers Int. U., 113 U.S.App.D.C. 334, 307 F. 2d 671 (1962); James D. Mooney, 9 T.C. 713 (1947); Parrish v. General Motors Corporation, Fla. Dist.Ct.App., 137 So. 2d 255 (1962); Kristt v. Whelan, 5 N.Y.2d 807, 181 N.Y.S.2d 205, 155 N.E. 2d 116 (1958); Harding v. Montgomery Ward Co., Ohio Ct.App., 58 N.E. 2d 75 (1944); Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Guignet, 112 Ind.App. 661, 45 N.E. 2d 337 (1942); Muir v. Leonard Refrigerator Co., 269 Mich. 406, 257 N.W. 723 (1934).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw