Chapin v. Klein

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Chapin v. Klein

623 P.2d 1250, 128 Ariz. 94, 1981 Ariz. App. LEXIS 337

CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona

DecidedJanuary 15, 1981

Docket2 CA-CIV 3730

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 623 P.2d 1250 (Chapin v. Klein) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chapin v. Klein, 623 P.2d 1250, 128 Ariz. 94, 1981 Ariz. App. LEXIS 337 (Ark. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

BIRDSALL, Judge.

The issues in this case are whether the evidence before the trial court supports its findings that the employer is liable for discharging an employee where the employment contract was for a definite term and that the amount of damages is $3,850.00.

The contract called for the employee, a veterinarian, to work in the veterinary office of the employer for a period of three months. At the beginning of the second month he was discharged. The employer based his action on what he claimed were poor professional practices by the employee. A discharge for cause would be a defense. There was a conflict in the evidence concerning this issue. The burden is on the employer to prove justification for the discharge. Davies v. Mansbach, 338 S.W.2d 210 (Ky.App.1960). No request was made for findings of fact. However, in order to support a judgment in favor of the employee, the court’s necessary finding was that the employer failed to sustain his burden and that finding will not be disturbed on appeal. See Gressley v. Patterson Tillage & Leveling, Inc., 119 Ariz. 154, 579 P.2d 1124 (App.1968).

The trial court awarded $3,850.00 in damages. The measure of damages is the unpaid balance of the employee’s salary less sums earned or which could reasonably have been earned during the remainder of the *95 period of the contract. Fogelman v. Peruvian Associates, 127 Ariz. 504, 622 P.2d 63 (App.1980); Perry v. Apache Junction Elementary School District No. 43, 20 Ariz. App. 561, 514 P.2d 514 (1973).

Since there was sufficient evidence before the trial court to support the damage award, the amount will not be disturbed on appeal. See Costanzo v. Stewart Title and Trust of Phoenix, 23 Ariz.App. 313, 533 P.2d 73 (1975).

We affirm.

HATHAWAY, C. J., and HOWARD, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

BIRDSALL, Judge.

The issues in this case are whether the evidence before the trial court supports its findings that the employer is liable for discharging an employee where the employment contract was for a definite term and that the amount of damages is $3,850.00.

The contract called for the employee, a veterinarian, to work in the veterinary office of the employer for a period of three months. At the beginning of the second month he was discharged. The employer based his action on what he claimed were poor professional practices by the employee. A discharge for cause would be a defense. There was a conflict in the evidence concerning this issue. The burden is on the employer to prove justification for the discharge. Davies v. Mansbach, 338 S.W.2d 210 (Ky.App.1960). No request was made for findings of fact. However, in order to support a judgment in favor of the employee, the court’s necessary finding was that the employer failed to sustain his burden and that finding will not be disturbed on appeal. See Gressley v. Patterson Tillage & Leveling, Inc., 119 Ariz. 154, 579 P.2d 1124 (App.1968).

The trial court awarded $3,850.00 in damages. The measure of damages is the unpaid balance of the employee’s salary less sums earned or which could reasonably have been earned during the remainder of the *95 period of the contract. Fogelman v. Peruvian Associates, 127 Ariz. 504, 622 P.2d 63 (App.1980); Perry v. Apache Junction Elementary School District No. 43, 20 Ariz. App. 561, 514 P.2d 514 (1973).

Since there was sufficient evidence before the trial court to support the damage award, the amount will not be disturbed on appeal. See Costanzo v. Stewart Title and Trust of Phoenix, 23 Ariz.App. 313, 533 P.2d 73 (1975).

We affirm.

HATHAWAY, C. J., and HOWARD, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

623 P.2d 1250, 128 Ariz. 94, 1981 Ariz. App. LEXIS 337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chapin-v-klein-arizctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack