From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wemhoff v. Investors Management Corp.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Dec 29, 1983
472 A.2d 51 (D.C. 1983)

Opinion

No. 81-272.

December 29, 1983.

Before NEWMAN, Chief Judge; KERN, NEBEKER, MACK, FERREN, PRYOR, BELSON, TERRY and ROGERS, Associate Judges.


ORDER


On consideration of appellees' petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc, it is

ORDERED by the merits division that appellees' petition for rehearing is denied.

It appearing that the majority of the judges of this court has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, it is

FURTHER ORDERED that appellees' petition for rehearing en banc is denied.

Associate Judges Ferren, Belson, and Terry would grant the petition for rehearing en banc.

Statement of Associate Judge NEBEKER:

I would grant the petition for rehearing. I am now convinced that the agreement between these parties regarding the continuation of commission payments after termination of employment constitutes an essential term of the employment contract. Since it is unsupported by a written memorandum, it is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds.

I do not, however, perceive this as a case requiring en banc consideration under the criteria of D.C.App.R. 40(c). Each case presenting this "essential terms" issue must necessarily turn upon its own peculiar facts, as this one on its facts surely does.


Summaries of

Wemhoff v. Investors Management Corp.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Dec 29, 1983
472 A.2d 51 (D.C. 1983)
Case details for

Wemhoff v. Investors Management Corp.

Case Details

Full title:Daniel M. WEMHOFF, Appellant, v. INVESTORS MANAGEMENT CORP., et al.…

Court:District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Date published: Dec 29, 1983

Citations

472 A.2d 51 (D.C. 1983)

Citing Cases

Wemhoff v. Investors Mgmt. Corp. of Amer

On appeal, this court disagreed, finding that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether…