Ravetto v. Triton Thalassic Technologies, Inc.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partZarella, J.
part. I agree with the majority that the trial court prop*744erly determined that the plaintiffs, W. Frederick Ravetto and Raymond Bartko, were not entitled to double damages and attorney’s fees and that Bartko was not entitled to damages for the failure of the named defendant, Triton Thalassic Technologies, Inc. (Triton),1 to repay his loan to the company in a timely manner. I also agree with the majority that the plaintiffs did not preserve their claim that the trial court improperly had failed to award them prejudgment interest for unpaid wages. I disagree, however, with the majority’s…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Coelho v. Posi-Seal International, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
- Hummel v. Marten Transports, Ltd.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
- Kelly v. Stop & Shop, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
- Orcutt v. Commissioner of CorrectionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
- Alstom Power, Inc. v. Balcke-Durr, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.