Supreme Court of Connecticut· 6/18/1991
Sansone v. Clifford
Citations
- 219 Conn. 217
- 592 A.2d 931
- 1991 Conn. LEXIS 301
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- finding of no bad faith where employee never submitted a bill and did not make written demand for payment of his salary.
- court had discretion to deny mandamus because plaintiff would derive no practical benefit from it
- double damages and attorney fees are inappropriate in absence of showing of bad faith, arbitrariness or unreasonableness
- “[I]n an action for wages brought pursuant to General Statutes § 31-72, awards for double damages and attorney’s fees are inappropriate in the absence of the trial court’s finding of bad faith, arbitrariness or unreasonableness.”
- “[i]n an action for wages brought pursuant to General Statutes § 31-72, awards for double damages and attorney’s fees are inappropriate in the absence of the trial court’s finding of bad faith, arbitrariness or unreasonableness” [internal quotation marks omitted]
- `[i]n an action for wages brought pursuant to General Statutes § 31-72 , awards for double damages and attorney's fees are inappropriate in the absence of the trial court's finding of bad faith, arbitrariness or unreasonableness' [internal quotation marks omitted]
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Shea
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
15 cases in this archive cite this case.
- DeLaurentis v. City of New HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1991-08-20· cited 503×
- Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2003-08-05· cited 189×
- Community Collaborative of Bridgeport, Inc. v. GanimSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1997-07-08· cited 117×
- Butler ex rel. Skidmore v. Hartford Technical Institute, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1997-12-30· cited 85×
- Saunders v. FirtelSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-09-22· cited 45×
- Ravetto v. Triton Thalassic Technologies, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-03-04· cited 40×
- Weems v. Citigroup, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-12-30· cited 35×
- Anderson v. SchiefferConnecticut Appellate Court· 1994-06-01· cited 32×
- Jalowiec Realty Associates, L.P. v. Planning & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2006-05-30· cited 20×
- Roberts v. Triplanet Partners, LLCD. Connecticut· 2013-06-20· cited 19×
- Petronella v. Venture Partners, Ltd.Connecticut Appellate Court· 2000-10-03· cited 15×
- Dumais v. UnderwoodConnecticut Appellate Court· 1998-02-24· cited 5×
- Santangelo v. Elite Beverage, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court· 2001-09-18· cited 3×
- Commissioner of Labor v. WallConnecticut Appellate Court· 2002-04-30· cited 3×
- Whinfield v. Capitas Distributors, Inc.D. Connecticut· 2015-06-03
Cites
11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court· 1972-06-29· cited 14,284×
- People v. TiltonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1869-07-01· cited 80×
- Carofano v. City of BridgeportSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1985-07-09· cited 63×
- L. Wayne Furtney v. Simsbury Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1970-07-14· cited 62×
- Hennessey v. City of BridgeportSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1990-02-13· cited 52×
- Crowther v. Gerber Garment Technology, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court· 1986-07-29· cited 52×
- Caulfield v. NobleSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1979-06-26· cited 34×
- Town of East Haven v. City of New HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1970-06-09· cited 31×
- Sullivan v. MorganSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1967-12-12· cited 22×
- Matteson v. Great Eastern Development, Ltd.Connecticut Appellate Court· 1989-06-13· cited 10×
- Marsala v. City of BridgeportConnecticut Appellate Court· 1988-06-10· cited 8×
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.