Bourgeois v. Cacciapuoti

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “[w]e have, in [workers’] compensation cases, uniformly given to the term [‘employee’] its common-law definition”
• the plaintiff was an independent contractor and thus not entitled to workers’ compensation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

14 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Castro v. Viera
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1988-05-10· cited 397×
• Tianti v. William Raveis Real Estate, Inc.
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1995-01-10· cited 62×
• Darling v. Burrone Bros., Inc.
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1972-01-19· cited 60×
• Hunte v. Blumenthal
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1996-07-23· cited 60×
• Silverberg v. Great Southwest Fire Insurance
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1990-04-24· cited 23×
• Hanson v. Transportation General, Inc.
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1998-07-28· cited 23×
• Chute v. Mobil Shipping & Transportation Co.
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 1993-07-13· cited 16×
• GAMEZ-REYES v. Biagi
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2012-06-12· cited 13×
• Rodriguez v. E.D. Construction, Inc.
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2011-02-22· cited 11×
• White Oak Corp. v. Department of Consumer Protection
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 1987-09-08· cited 9×
• Menzie v. Windham Community Memorial Hospital
  D. Connecticut· 1991-09-16· cited 8×
• Ceferatti v. Aranow
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2014-12-09
• Araujo v. Toro Realty Corp.
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 1966-04-22
• Scholz v. United States
  D. Connecticut· 1967-07-17

Cites

1 case in this archive is cited by this case.

• Jack and Jill, Inc. v. Tone
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1939-11-16· cited 34×