Legal Opinion
Skinner v. Angliker
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided July 26, 1988No. 5519PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDaly, J.
The plaintiff instituted this action against the defendants1 for wrongful discharge from employment. The defendants have appealed from the judgment rendered on the jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, claiming that the trial court erred (1) in denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity, (2) in denying the defendants’ motion to strike the case from the jury docket, (3) in refusing to charge as requested, and (4) in refusing to charge the jury as requested concerning punitive damages. We find error in part.
*299The following facts are relevant to this appeal. On March…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Sheets v. Teddy's Frosted Foods, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Horton v. MeskillSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1977
- Robinson v. Unemployment Security Board of ReviewSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Duguay v. HopkinsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Baker v. IvesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1972
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Conboy v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2009
- Skinner v. AnglikerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
- Mahoney v. LensinkConnecticut Appellate Court · 1988
- Amore v. FrankelConnecticut Appellate Court · 1992
- Carson v. Ragaglia, No. Cv00 076213s (Jun. 27, 2002)Connecticut Superior Court · 2002
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.