Courtyard by Marriot v. Administrator, No. Cv00-0158532s (Aug. 2, 2001)

Connecticut Superior Court

Courtyard by Marriot v. Administrator, No. Cv00-0158532s (Aug. 2, 2001)

2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 10536

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedAugust 2, 2001

DocketNo. CV00-0158532S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 10536 (Courtyard by Marriot v. Administrator, No. Cv00-0158532s (Aug. 2, 2001)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Courtyard by Marriot v. Administrator, No. Cv00-0158532s (Aug. 2, 2001), 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 10536 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT The motion for judgment entering a dismissal of this appeal is granted.

"Willfulness or misconduct contemplated by the act is generally held to mean something more than mere negligence or carelessness. . . . Willfulness implies bad purpose, wanton and reckless indifference."Duperry v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 25 Conn. Sup. 409; 410 (1964).

Based on the record, this court finds that there was substantial evidence to find that claimant's conduct in not canceling the limousine was not wilful misconduct as set forth in Connecticut General Statutes § 31-236.

CHASE T. ROGERS, J.

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