Shortt v. New Milford Police Department

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Shortt v. New Milford Police Department

550 A.2d 1085, 209 Conn. 817, 1988 Conn. LEXIS 343

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedOctober 14, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 550 A.2d 1085 (Shortt v. New Milford Police Department) 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

Shortt v. New Milford Police Department, 550 A.2d 1085, 209 Conn. 817, 1988 Conn. LEXIS 343 (Colo. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 16 Conn. App. 232, is granted, limited to the following issues:

Jeffrey B. Sienkiewicz, in support of the petition. Janet Bond Arterton, in opposition. Decided October 14, 1988

“1. Did the Appellate Court err in concluding that the plaintiff police officer had an independent statutory right for collection of unpaid wages, costs and attorney’s fees under § 31-72 of the Connecticut General Statutes when neither his entitlement to wages nor the amount thereof had been determined under the grievance procedure contained in the collective bargaining agreement?

“2. Did the Appellate Court err in holding that § 31-72 of the Connecticut General Statutes was applicable to the defendant as an ‘employer’ within the statutory definition of that term contained in General Statutes § 31-71a (1)?”

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, 16 Conn. App. 232, is granted, limited to the following issues:

Jeffrey B. Sienkiewicz, in support of the petition. Janet Bond Arterton, in opposition. Decided October 14, 1988

“1. Did the Appellate Court err in concluding that the plaintiff police officer had an independent statutory right for collection of unpaid wages, costs and attorney’s fees under § 31-72 of the Connecticut General Statutes when neither his entitlement to wages nor the amount thereof had been determined under the grievance procedure contained in the collective bargaining agreement?

“2. Did the Appellate Court err in holding that § 31-72 of the Connecticut General Statutes was applicable to the defendant as an ‘employer’ within the statutory definition of that term contained in General Statutes § 31-71a (1)?”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

550 A.2d 1085, 209 Conn. 817, 1988 Conn. LEXIS 343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shortt-v-new-milford-police-department-conn-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack