Downes-Patterson Corp. v. First Nat'l Supermarkets, Inc., 782 A.2d 1242 (Conn. 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
Downes-Patterson Corp. v. First Nat'l Supermarkets, Inc., 782 A.2d 1242 (Conn. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
36 citation events (36 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Pelc v. Southington Dental Associates, P.C. (connappct, 2025-05-06)
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002 2014 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Pelc v. Southington Dental Associates, P.C.
Conn. App. Ct. · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence low
This court repeatedly has declined to ‘‘read into th[is] unambigu- ous statute an exception to the word ‘all.’ ’’ Frantzen v. Davenport Electric, supra, 179 Conn. App. 853 ; see also Prioli v. State Library, 64 Conn. App. 301, 309 , 780 A.2d 172 (citing with approval board decision con- cluding that ‘‘[i]t would be inconsistent with both the clear meaning of those definitions and the humanitarian purpose of the Workers’ Compensation Act in general to read § 31-327 (b) as limiting the authority of commis- sioners to oversee attorney’s fees’’ (internal quotation marks om…
DOWNES-PATTERSON CORPORATION
v.
FIRST NATIONAL SUPERMARKETS, INC.
SC 16585.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Sep 20, 2001.
782 A.2d 1242
Robert M. Shields, Jr., Wesley W. Horton and Michael J. Quinn, in support of the petition., Everett E. Newton, in opposition.
Published

The plaintiffs’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 64 Conn. App. 417 (AC 20506), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Was the Appellate Court correct in determining that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in setting aside the jury’s verdict on the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act count on the basis that the defendant was under no duty to release the restrictive covenant?

“2. Was the Appellate Court correct in determining that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in setting aside the jury’s verdict on the tortious interference[*918] count on the basis that the defendant was under no duty to release the restrictive covenant?

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 16585. Robert M. Shields, Jr., Wesley W. Horton and Michael J. Quinn, in support of the petition. Everett E. Newton, in opposition. Decided September 20, 2001

“3. Did the Appellate Court usurp the jury’s fact-finding function by ignoring evidence sufficient to support the jury’s fact-finding function?”