Legal Opinion

Cashman v. Town of Tolland

Connecticut Superior Court

Decided July 2, 2004No. File No. X04-CV-02-0103471SPublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtQuinn, J.

The question these cross motions for summary judgment ask the court to determine is for what period of time, pursuant to General Statutes § 31-76b, a town must pay any employees who operate snowplows and are called back on duty from home after having left work at the end of their regular work schedule. Resolution of the dispute turns on the question of when, under these facts, such employees are notified of their work assignment. For the reasons the court will set forth in detail, given the facts and circumstances of this case, the court finds that the employees receive their work assignment,…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. State v. CourchesneSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2003
  2. D.H.R. Construction Co. v. DonnellySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
  3. Peck v. JacqueminSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
  4. QSP, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
  5. Sherwood v. Danbury HospitalSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2000

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Cashman v. Town of TollandSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2005

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API