Legal Opinion
Rayhall v. Akim Co.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided April 29, 2003No. SC 16685PublishedCited by 61 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KATZ, J.
The plaintiff, Victor Rayhall, and the named defendant,1 Akim Company, Inc., respectively, appeal and cross appeal2 from the decision of the compensa*331tion review board (board) affirming the decision of the workers’ compensation commissioner for the second district (commissioner) that: (1) awarded to the plaintiff retroactive compensation for temporary partial incapacity; and (2) ordered the defendant, pursuant to General Statutes § 31-307 (e),3 to deduct $1002 per month as a social security offset from prospective compensation to the plaintiff for temporary total incapacity. In…
2Cases cited74 opinions
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Plyler v. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Heller v. Doe Ex Rel. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. MurgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
69 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by61 opinions
- Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public HealthSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2008
- Lostritto v. Community Action Agency of New Haven, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
- State v. LongSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
- Hoesli v. Triplett, Inc.Supreme Court of Kansas · 2015
- Marandino v. Prometheus PharmacySupreme Court of Connecticut · 2010
56 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.