Roman v. Eyelets for Industry, Inc.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Roman v. Eyelets for Industry, Inc.

719 A.2d 1165, 245 Conn. 912, 1998 Conn. LEXIS 245

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedJune 17, 1998

DocketSC 15959

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 719 A.2d 1165 (Roman v. Eyelets for Industry, Inc.) 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

Roman v. Eyelets for Industry, Inc., 719 A.2d 1165, 245 Conn. 912, 1998 Conn. LEXIS 245 (Colo. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendants’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 48 Conn. App. 357 (AC 16964), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court misapply General Statutes § 31-294c by affirming a compensation review board [913]*913decision holding that a claimant who had an accepted, compensable leg and ankle injury is not barred from bringing a back claim, allegedly occurring from the same accident, more than one year after the date of the accident, without filing a written notice of claim for the back injury within the first year or otherwise satisfying one of the exceptions to the written notice of claim requirement?”

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15959. Dominick C. Statile, in support of the petition. Decided June 17, 1998

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

The defendants’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 48 Conn. App. 357 (AC 16964), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court misapply General Statutes § 31-294c by affirming a compensation review board [913]*913decision holding that a claimant who had an accepted, compensable leg and ankle injury is not barred from bringing a back claim, allegedly occurring from the same accident, more than one year after the date of the accident, without filing a written notice of claim for the back injury within the first year or otherwise satisfying one of the exceptions to the written notice of claim requirement?”

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15959. Dominick C. Statile, in support of the petition. Decided June 17, 1998

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

719 A.2d 1165, 245 Conn. 912, 1998 Conn. LEXIS 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roman-v-eyelets-for-industry-inc-conn-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack