Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Giffen (P) and others were suspended from employment with Westfield (D) because of indictments against them for the performance of public duties. P was acquitted on one of the charges, and the remaining indictments were dismissed against P and another without prejudice on the basis that they had been represented by the same attorney in their appearances before the grand jury. The State appealed those dismissals. P then brought an action for removal of his suspension and payment of salary and benefits due him to which the city filed an action for declaratory relief challenging the legality of the original appointments of both Ps. The dismissal of the indictments was reversed to determine if the joint representation resulted in irreparable harm. Ps then entered into settlement agreements with D wherein the city lifted Ps' suspensions and Ps immediately resigned but were granted retirement benefits. Eighteen months after signing the settlement agreements, Ps brought this present action to rescind those agreements; the agreements contained a clause that Ps entered into the agreement of their own free will with advice of competent counsel without duress or undue influence. Ps claimed that they had been induced into the agreements based on an illegal oral agreement that no further action would be instituted with respect to the indictments. No further action on the indictments had been taken. D moved for summary judgment. That was granted and Ps appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co