Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. v. Randall
978 A.2d 1110, 293 Conn. 913, 2009 Conn. LEXIS 438
This text of 978 A.2d 1110 (Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. v. Randall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. v. Randall, 978 A.2d 1110, 293 Conn. 913, 2009 Conn. LEXIS 438 (Colo. 2009).
Opinion
The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 115 Conn. App. 89 (AC 29572), is granted, limited to the following issue:
“Whether the Appellate Court properly determined that the trial court properly supplied purported missing terms to a restrictive covenant in the subject employment agreement without resorting to the equitable remedy of reformation?”
ROGERS, C. J., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. v. Randall
971 A.2d 796 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2009)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
978 A.2d 1110, 293 Conn. 913, 2009 Conn. LEXIS 438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hilb-rogal-hobbs-co-v-randall-conn-2009.