Holub v. Babcock King Inc., No. Cv94 031 61 08 (Nov. 4, 1994)

Connecticut Superior Court

Holub v. Babcock King Inc., No. Cv94 031 61 08 (Nov. 4, 1994)

1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 11267-V, 12 Conn. L. Rptr. 634

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedNovember 4, 1994

DocketNo. CV94 031 61 08

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 11267-V (Holub v. Babcock King Inc., No. Cv94 031 61 08 (Nov. 4, 1994)) 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

Holub v. Babcock King Inc., No. Cv94 031 61 08 (Nov. 4, 1994), 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 11267-V, 12 Conn. L. Rptr. 634 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]ORDER Pursuant to General Statutes § 52-156(a) it hereby is ordered that the plaintiff may take the depositions upon oral examination of the individuals listed in his petition. Pursuant to chapter 8 of the Connecticut Practice Book said depositions will pertain to the plaintiff's claim that he was discharged from his employment in retaliation for his alleged cooperation with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and that the reasons cited for his discharge were pretexts, which subject matter shall be broadly construed in accordance with Practice Book 218. Should any party wish the depositions to be videotaped, that party may file a motion with the court pursuant to Practice Book § 244(e).

BY THE COURT

LEVIN, JUDGE

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

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]ORDER Pursuant to General Statutes § 52-156(a) it hereby is ordered that the plaintiff may take the depositions upon oral examination of the individuals listed in his petition. Pursuant to chapter 8 of the Connecticut Practice Book said depositions will pertain to the plaintiff's claim that he was discharged from his employment in retaliation for his alleged cooperation with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and that the reasons cited for his discharge were pretexts, which subject matter shall be broadly construed in accordance with Practice Book 218. Should any party wish the depositions to be videotaped, that party may file a motion with the court pursuant to Practice Book § 244(e).

BY THE COURT

LEVIN, JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 11267-V, 12 Conn. L. Rptr. 634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holub-v-babcock-king-inc-no-cv94-031-61-08-nov-4-1994-connsuperct-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack