Connecticut Appellate Court· 5/12/1998
Cotto v. United Technologies Corp.
Citations
- 48 Conn. App. 618
- 711 A.2d 1180
- 13 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1732
- 1998 Conn. App. LEXIS 205
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- rejecting the claim because the plaintiff’s “actions and expressions of opinion did interfere with his relationship with his employer”
- “In deciding whether the allegations of the plaintiff's complaint [under § 31–51q] state a cause of action for the deprivation of a constitutionally protected right, it is instructive to review federal and state cases arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because § 31–51q is analogous.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Dupont, Hennessy
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
16 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Daley v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1999-08-03· cited 171×
- Tiernan v. Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc.West Virginia Supreme Court· 1998-07-21· cited 116×
- Bracey v. Board Of Education Of City Of BridgeportSecond Circuit· 2004-05-11· cited 96×
- Cotto v. United Technologies Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1999-10-12· cited 69×
- Emerick v. KuhnConnecticut Appellate Court· 1999-04-20· cited 66×
- United States Ex Rel. Smith v. Yale UniversityD. Connecticut· 2006-02-14· cited 39×
- Lewis v. SwanConnecticut Appellate Court· 1998-08-11· cited 29×
- Schumann v. Dianon Systems, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2012-05-01· cited 23×
- Barlow v. ConnecticutD. Connecticut· 2004-05-05· cited 18×
- Lopez v. Burris Logistics Co.D. Connecticut· 2013-07-03· cited 12×
- McClain v. PFIZER, INC.D. Connecticut· 2010-02-26· cited 10×
- Szewczyk v. Department of Social ServicesConnecticut Appellate Court· 2003-05-27· cited 10×
- Vale v. City of New HavenD. Connecticut· 2016-07-19· cited 8×
- Kennedy v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of New York, Inc.D. Connecticut· 2001-10-29· cited 6×
- Bracey v. Board of EducationSecond Circuit· 2004-05-11· cited 3×
- Cotto v. United Technologies Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1998-06-25· cited 1×
Cites
29 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty.Supreme Court· 1968-06-03· cited 6,021×
- Connick Ex Rel. Parish of Orleans v. MyersSupreme Court· 1983-04-20· cited 5,562×
- Shelley v. KraemerSupreme Court· 1948-05-03· cited 1,913×
- Rendell-Baker v. KohnSupreme Court· 1982-06-25· cited 1,826×
- PruneYard Shopping Center v. RobinsSupreme Court· 1980-06-09· cited 1,093×
- Schenck v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1919-03-03· cited 1,079×
- Waters v. ChurchillSupreme Court· 1994-05-31· cited 1,041×
- Civil Rights CasesSupreme Court· 1883-10-15· cited 999×
- Hudgens v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court· 1976-03-03· cited 720×
- Sheets v. Teddy's Frosted Foods, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1980-01-22· cited 532×
- Sanzone v. Board of Police CommissionersSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1991-06-11· cited 365×
- Lees v. Middlesex InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1991-07-23· cited 220×
- Cologne v. Westfarms AssociatesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1984-01-17· cited 175×
- Ford v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Connecticut, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1990-07-31· cited 163×
- Skinner v. AnglikerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-05-30· cited 83×
- Andover LP I v. Board of Tax ReviewSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1995-03-14· cited 81×
- Schnabel v. TylerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1994-08-09· cited 79×
- Schmidt v. Yardney Electric Corp.Connecticut Appellate Court· 1985-05-21· cited 59×
- Squeglia v. SquegliaSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1995-07-18· cited 47×
- D'Angelo v. McGoldrickSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1996-12-03· cited 38×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.