Lassiter v. Marshall

710 A.2d 192, 49 Conn. App. 105, 1998 Conn. App. LEXIS 253
CourtConnecticut Appellate Court
DecidedJune 16, 1998
DocketAC 16740
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 710 A.2d 192 (Lassiter v. Marshall) 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
Lassiter v. Marshall, 710 A.2d 192, 49 Conn. App. 105, 1998 Conn. App. LEXIS 253 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff brought this action pursuant to General Statutes § 31-721 seeking the minimum wage, double damages and attorney’s fees with respect to the period of his domestic employment in the residence of the defendants pursuant to an oral agreement providing for wages of $40 per week plus room and board. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $5215.76, consisting of the amount of the minimum wages, based on a forty hour week during the entire thirteen month period of employment, less the maximum allowable amounts for room and board under applicable federal regulations. [106]*106The trial court denied the plaintiffs claim for double damages and attorney’s fees.

The plaintiff, appealing from the judgment of the trial court, claims that the trial court abused its discretion in (1) refusing to award double damages and attorney’s fees under General Statutes §§ 31-72 and 31-68 (a), and (2) crediting the defendants with the maximum amount allowed by federal law for room and board.

We have fully reviewed the record and briefs and considered the oral arguments of the parties. The appeal largely relies on factual issues. The trial court’s findings are supported by the evidence and the inferences that may be drawn therefrom. Having applied the appropriate standard of review; Matteson v. Great Eastern Development, Ltd., 18 Conn. App. 618, 621, 559 A.2d 1165 (1989); we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and that its decision conforms to the applicable law.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Lassiter v. Marshall
720 A.2d 515 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
710 A.2d 192, 49 Conn. App. 105, 1998 Conn. App. LEXIS 253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lassiter-v-marshall-connappct-1998.