From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tomick v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jul 8, 2015
317 Conn. 916 (Conn. 2015)

Opinion

07-08-2015

Michael TOMICK v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., et al.

Michael D. Colonese, Norwich, in support of the petition. Michael C. Harrington and Jennifer A. Corvo, in opposition.


Michael D. Colonese, Norwich, in support of the petition.Michael C. Harrington and Jennifer A. Corvo, in opposition.

Opinion

The plaintiff's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 157 Conn.App. 312, 115 A.3d 1143 (2015), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court properly determine that General Statutes § 46a–104 does not authorize the award of punitive damages?

“2. If the answer to the first question is in the negative, does the award of punitive damages in § 46a–104 fall within the province of the court or the jury?”

ROBINSON, J., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.


Summaries of

Tomick v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jul 8, 2015
317 Conn. 916 (Conn. 2015)
Case details for

Tomick v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Michael TOMICK v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., et al.

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Date published: Jul 8, 2015

Citations

317 Conn. 916 (Conn. 2015)
317 Conn. 916

Citing Cases

Tomick v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.

We granted the plaintiff's petition for certification to appeal limited to the following questions: (1) "Did…

Tomick v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.

I recognize that this court certified a second question to be answered should we conclude that § 46a-104…