From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rogal v. Randall

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Oct 13, 2009
981 A.2d 1078 (Conn. 2009)

Opinion

Decided October 13, 2009


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 should have supplied missing words in a nonsolicitation provision in an employment agreement without resorting to the equitable remedy of reformation because the parties' intent to prohibit the conduct at issue was clear?"
Scott S. Centrella, in support of the petition.

Sheila A. Huddleston, Glenn M. Cunningham and

Lee A. Duval, in opposition.

ROGERS, C. J., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition. The Supreme Court docket number is SC 18444.


Summaries of

Rogal v. Randall

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Oct 13, 2009
981 A.2d 1078 (Conn. 2009)
Case details for

Rogal v. Randall

Case Details

Full title:HILB ROGAL AND HOBBS COMPANY, ET AL. v. UTA PETERS RANDALL

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut

Date published: Oct 13, 2009

Citations

981 A.2d 1078 (Conn. 2009)
981 A.2d 1078