Veno v. Meredith
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
515 A.2d 571 (1986)
- Written by Jenny Perry, JD
Facts
Carl Veno (plaintiff) was the managing editor of a newspaper owned by Charles Meredith (defendant). Approximately eight years into Veno’s tenure with the newspaper, Meredith fired Veno for publishing a story critical of a local judge. Veno sued Meredith, alleging that Meredith had wrongfully discharged him. Meredith argued that Veno was an at-will employee. Several years earlier, Meredith had cosigned a disclosure statement and demand note when Veno purchased a house. According to Veno, at that time, Meredith told him that although they were not earning much money then, they would someday. Meredith also allegedly stated that he wanted Veno to raise his family in the area and that he and Veno would retire together. In addition, Meredith was aware that Veno had moved his family from Newark to Pennsylvania to work for Meredith and that Veno had turned down other job offers while employed by Meredith’s newspaper. The trial court issued a nonsuit at the end of Veno’s case-in-chief, and Veno appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cavanaugh, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
