Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. v. Randall

978 A.2d 1110, 293 Conn. 913, 2009 Conn. LEXIS 438

Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided September 9, 2009·No. SC 18444·Published

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.

Sheila A. Huddleston, Glenn M. Cunningham and Lee A. Duval, in opposition. Decided September 9, 2009

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

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.

Sheila A. Huddleston, Glenn M. Cunningham and Lee A. Duval, in opposition. Decided September 9, 2009

Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. v. Randall, 978 A.2d 1110, 293 Conn. 913, 2009 Conn. LEXIS 438 (Colo. 2009).

Pincite

978 A.2d 1110 (Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. v. Randall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. v. Randall

971 A.2d 796 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2009)

Opinion

Related