NORMAN HAMMETT V ROSS MOODY CHEVROLET INC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS NORMAN HAMMETT, UNPUBLISHED March 19, 1999 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 192343 Lapeer Circuit Court LC No. 94-020008 CL ROSS MOODY CHEVROLET, INC., Defendant-Appellee. ON REMAND Before: Bandstra, P.J., and Hood and Jansen, JJ. BANDSTRA, P.J., (dissenting). I would affirm summary disposition in this case because its facts are similar to other precedents where summary disposition has been affirmed by our Court. For example, in Barber v SMH (US), Inc, 202 Mich App 366, 369; 509 NW2d 791 (1993), the plaintiff alleged that, during discussions specifically centering on the “terms and conditions under which [he] . . . could be terminated,” the defendant promised that termination could not occur as long as the employee was “profitable and doing the job.” In other words, the defendant allegedly promised, in a job security discussion, that the plaintiff could not be discharged except for enumerated good causes – the lack of profitability or the failure to perform the job. We determined that this was insufficient to support a wrongful termination claim under Rowe v Montgomery Ward, 437 Mich 627; 473 NW2d 268 (1991), and Rood v General Dynamics Corp, 444 Mich 107; 507 NW2d 591 (1993). Barber, supra at 368-372. For the same reasons, we should affirm summary disposition here. /s/ Richard A. Bandstra -1

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.