Bulger v. Lieberman

Connecticut Appellate Court

Bulger v. Lieberman

667 A.2d 561, 39 Conn. App. 772, 1995 Conn. App. LEXIS 483

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedDecember 5, 1995

Docket13832

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 667 A.2d 561 (Bulger v. Lieberman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bulger v. Lieberman, 667 A.2d 561, 39 Conn. App. 772, 1995 Conn. App. LEXIS 483 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this action based on the wrongful termination of employment, the plaintiff appeals from [773]*773the judgment of the trial court granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The trial court based its decision on the doctrine of collateral estoppel because the issue of wrongful termination was previously litigated in binding arbitration pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. We conclude that the issues in this case are governed by Corey v. Avco-Lycoming Division, 163 Conn. 309, 318, 307 A.2d 155 (1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1116, 93 S. Ct. 903, 34 L. Ed. 2d 699 (1973), and do not fall within the exceptions explicated in Genovese v. Gallo Wine Merchants, Inc., 226 Conn. 475, 628 A.2d 946 (1993).

Accordingly, the general rule outlined in Corey controls, and the factual determinations made in final and binding arbitration are given preclusive effect. See Bus-coni v. Dighello, 39 Conn. App. 753, 766-68, 668 A.2d 716 (1995). The arbitration panel’s unanimous decision that the plaintiff resigned from her employment with the town is binding on her under the doctrine of collateral estoppel and is dispositive of the issues alleged in this case.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this action based on the wrongful termination of employment, the plaintiff appeals from [773]*773the judgment of the trial court granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The trial court based its decision on the doctrine of collateral estoppel because the issue of wrongful termination was previously litigated in binding arbitration pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. We conclude that the issues in this case are governed by Corey v. Avco-Lycoming Division, 163 Conn. 309, 318, 307 A.2d 155 (1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1116, 93 S. Ct. 903, 34 L. Ed. 2d 699 (1973), and do not fall within the exceptions explicated in Genovese v. Gallo Wine Merchants, Inc., 226 Conn. 475, 628 A.2d 946 (1993).

Accordingly, the general rule outlined in Corey controls, and the factual determinations made in final and binding arbitration are given preclusive effect. See Bus-coni v. Dighello, 39 Conn. App. 753, 766-68, 668 A.2d 716 (1995). The arbitration panel’s unanimous decision that the plaintiff resigned from her employment with the town is binding on her under the doctrine of collateral estoppel and is dispositive of the issues alleged in this case.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

667 A.2d 561, 39 Conn. App. 772, 1995 Conn. App. LEXIS 483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bulger-v-lieberman-connappct-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack