green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
6.7 score
“plaintiff's position would expand the narrow exception to the at will employment rule and thus upset the delicate balance, struck by that exception, between the legitimate interest of employer and employee”
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Johnson v. Carpenter Technology Corp.
plaintiff's position would expand the narrow exception to the at will employment rule and thus upset the delicate balance, struck by that exception, between the legitimate interest of employer and employee
discussed
Cited "see"
Silano v. Cooney
See Battista v. United Illuminating Co., 10 Conn. App. 486, 493 , 523 A.2d 1356 (‘‘[t]he mod- ern view of this requirement is that the crime be a chargeable offense which is punishable by imprison- ment’’), cert. denied, 204 Conn. 802 , 803, 525 A.2d 1352 (1987).
cited
Cited "see"
Marczeski v. Law
See Battista v. United Illuminating Co., 10 Conn.App. 486, 491 , 523 A.2d 1356 , cert. denied, 204 Conn. 802 -03, 525 A.2d 1352 (1987); Connecticut Law of Torts §§ 146, 147.
discussed
Cited "see"
Vargas v. Vargas, No. 0551061 (Sep. 28, 2000)
See Gelinas v. Gelinas , 100 Conn. App. 167 , 174 , 522 A.2d 295 , cert. denied, 204 Conn. 802 , 525 A.2d 965 (1987); Grayson v. Grayson , 4 Conn. App. 275 , 286 , 494 A.2d 576 (1985); Jackson v. Jackson , 2 Conn. App. 179 , 189 , 478 A.2d 1026 (1984); but see Grezer v. Grezer , supra, 599-600 (express finding of fraud on court required that judgment be opened without regard to four limitations).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Tamara M., (Sep. 22, 2000)
See In Re Carol O. , 10 Conn. App. 428 , 435-36 , 523 A.2d 1339 , cert. denied, 204 Conn. 802 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
Pospisil v. Pospisil
See Gelinas v. Gelinas, 10 Conn. App. 167, 173 , 522 A.2d 295 , cert. denied, 204 Conn. 802 , 525 A.2d 965 (1987); Jackson v. Jackson, 2 Conn. App. 179, 194 , 478 A.2d 1026 , cert. denied, 194 Conn. 805 , 482 A.2d 710 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Glover v. Glover, No. 540221 (Oct. 13, 1999)
See Gelinas v. Gelinas, 100 Conn. App. 167 , 174 , 522 A.2d 295 , cert. denied, 204 Conn. 802 , 525 A.2d 965 (1987); Grayson v. Grayson, 4 Conn. App. 275 , 286 , 494 A.2d 576 (1985); Jackson v. Jackson, 2 Conn. App. 179 , 189 , 478 A.2d 1026 (1984); but see Greger v. Greger, supra, 599-600 (express finding of fraud on court required that judgment be opened without regard to four limitations).
discussed
Cited "see"
Glover v. Glover, No. 0540221 (Nov. 20, 1998)
See Gelinas v. Gelinas , 100 Conn. App. 167 , 174 , 522 A.2d 295 , cert. denied, 204 Conn. 802 , 525 A.2d 965 (1987); Grayson v. Grayson , 4 Conn. App. 275 , 286 , 494 A.2d 576 (1985); Jackson v. Jackson , 2 Conn. App. 179 , 189 , 478 A.2d 1026 (1984); but see Greger v. Greger , supra , 599-600 (express finding of fraud on court required that judgment be opened without regard to four limitations).
discussed
Cited "see"
Pamela B. v. Ment
(2×)
See In re Carl O., 10 Conn. App. 428, 434 , 523 A.2d 1339 , cert. denied, 204 Conn. 802 , 525 A.2d 964 (1987) (issues involving temporary custody order are moot once child is adjudicated neglected and committed to department). 19 Second, even if a given case were not moot, because it is unrealistic to assume that an appellate court would return the child to the parent after a judge, although in an ex parte proceeding, had found probable cause for immediate removal, the reviewing court would likely remand the case to the trial court for an immediate custody hearing.
discussed
Cited "see"
Watson v. Watson, No. 25 60 96 (Jul. 20, 1992)
See Gelinas v. Gelinas, 10 Conn. App. 167 , 174 , 522 A.2d 295 , cert. denied, 204 Conn. 802 , 525 A.2d 965 (1987); Grayson v. Grayson, 4 Conn. App, 275 , 286 , 494 A.2d 576 (1985); Jackson v. Jackson, 2 Conn. App. 179 , 189 , 478 A.2d 1026 (1984); but see Greger v. Greger, supra, 599-600 (express finding of fraud on court required that judgment be opened without regard to four limitations).
discussed
Cited "see"
Billington v. Billington
See Gelinas v. Gelinas, 10 Conn. App. 167, 174 , 522 A.2d 295 , cert. denied, 204 Conn. 802 , 525 A.2d 965 (1987); Grayson v. Grayson, 4 Conn. App. 275, 286 , 494 A.2d 576 (1985); Jackson v. Jackson, 2 Conn. App. 179, 189 , 478 A.2d 1026 (1984); but see Greger v. Greger, supra, 599-600 (express finding of fraud on court required that judgment be opened without regard to four limitations).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Wendy G.-R.
(4×)
See, e.g., In re Carl O., 10 Conn. App. 428 , 437–38, 523 A.2d 1339 (concluding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting petitioner’s request to amend termination of parental rights petition when request was made on eve of trial and court had offered to grant respondents continu- ances for purpose of responding to amendment), cert. denied, 204 Conn. 802 , 525 A.2d 964 (1987), and cert. denied, 204 Conn. 802 , 525 A.2d 964 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Shaun S.
(2×)
Compare In re Carl O., 10 Conn. App. 428, 434 , 523 A.2d 1339 (orders of temporary custody were rendered moot when children were adjudicated to be neglected), cert. denied, 204 Conn. 802 , 525 A.2d 964 (1987).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Contois v. Carmen Anthony Restaurant Group, No. Cv 00 0160287 (Feb. 2, 2001)
Id.; see also Battista v. United Illuminating Co., 10 Conn. App. 486 , 495 , 523 A.2d 1356 , cert. denied, 204 Conn. 802 , 803 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Taylor v. Grote Weigel, Inc., No. Cv96 0563464 (Mar. 6, 1998)
See also Battista v. United Illuminating Co., 10 Conn. App. 486 , 495 cert. denied, 204 Conn. 802 , 803 CT Page 3604 (1987) (holding that a cause of action for a violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing "is coterminous with, and extends no further than, a cause of action for wrongful discharge in tort").
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Omega Engineering, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co.
Not surprisingly, the scienter requirement for fraudulent nondisclosure omits any reference to knowledge or recklessness as to a statement’s falsity: “[T]he nondisclosure must be by a person intending or expecting thereby to cause a mistake by another to exist or to continue, in order to induce the latter to enter into or refrain from entering into a transaction.” Id. at 347-48 , 114 A.2d at 215 ; see also Gelinas v. Gelinas, 10 Conn.App. 167, 173 , 522 A.2d 295, 298 (1987) (“Fraud by nondisclosure ... expands on the ... elements [of fraud by misrepresentation]-”), cert. denied, 204 …
In re Carl O.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
May 21, 1987.
Lawrence A. Dubin, in support of the petition., Michael O’Connor, assistant attorney general, in opposition.
Published
Citer courts: D. Connecticut (1)
The respondent father’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 10 Conn. App. 428, is denied.