Supreme Court of Connecticut· 7/23/1996

Fink v. Golenbock

Citations

238 Conn. 183
680 A.2d 1243
1996 Conn. LEXIS 262

How courts have described this case

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

holding that defendant’s actions in attempting to usurp the business and clientele of one corporation in favor of another fall under CUTPA
concluding single minority shareholder to be adequate representative in derivative suit against all other shareholders who had benefited from wrong claimed in suit
holding a CUTPA claim cognizable where “[defendant] took steps to ensure that the plaintiff and the corporation would have no opportunity to engage in the practice of medicine in [Connecticut]”
concluding that a CUTPA claim can be arbitrated
describing arbitration clause governing “ ‘[a]ny disputes arising under [the employment agreement]’ ” as having language that is “all-embracing, all-encompassing and broad”
noting how the trial court denied defendant’s “motion in limine to preclude the introduction of evidence relating to the claims previously adjudicated at the arbitration”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Katz

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

97 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

47 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.