Legal Opinion
Kulig v. Crown Supermarket
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided September 14, 1999No. SC 15897PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
PALMER, J.
The principal issue raised by this appeal is whether the ten day limitation period prescribed by General Statutes § 31-301 (a)2 for appealing an adverse decision of a workers’ compensation commissioner (commissioner) to the compensation review board (board) begins to run from the date the commissioner sends notice of his or her decision to the party wishing to appeal, or from the date notice is received by that party.3 We conclude that the ten day period commences *605on the date that notice is sent to the party by the commissioner.
The relevant facts and procedural history may be…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Chieppo v. Robert E. McMichael, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1975
- Murphy v. Elms HotelSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
- Schreck v. City of StamfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
- Conaci v. Hartford HospitalConnecticut Appellate Court · 1994
- Freeman v. Hull Dye & Print, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1995
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Hatt v. Burlington Coat FactorySupreme Court of Connecticut · 2003
- Giaimo v. City of New HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
- Stec v. Raymark Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2010
- Kudlacz v. Lindberg Heat Treating Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
- State v. CoscunaConnecticut Appellate Court · 2000
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.