LaProvidenza v. State Employees' Retirement Commission
Supreme Court of Connecticut
1Opinion of the CourtLongo, J.
The plaintiff has appealed from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas in which he sought a declaratory judgment determining his retirement benefits as they were affected by the payment of a lump sum settlement under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The facts underlying this controversy are not in dispute: The plaintiff had been employed for many years by the city of Bridgeport. The city participates in Fund B of the Connecticut Municipal Employees’ Retirement Fund which is administered by the defendant State Employees’ Retirement Commission. The plaintiff was eligible for normal, voluntary…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- United Aircraft Corporation v. FusariSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1972
- Sage-Allen Co., Inc. v. WheelerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1935
- City of Bridgeport v. Town of StratfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1955
- Bahre v. HogbloomSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1972
- Litchfield v. City of BridgeportSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1925
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- White v. BurnsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
- Peck v. JacqueminSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
- In re Juvenile Appeal (83-CD)Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Perille v. Raybestos-Manhattan-Europe, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
- Verrastro v. SivertsenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.