Legal Opinion

Molnar v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided November 12, 1996No. 15449PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Per curiam

The two issues presented by this appeal are whether the trial court properly determined that: (1) workers’ compensation benefits do not qualify as “wages” within the meaning of General Statutes § 31-222 (b) (l)1 and therefore could not be used to determine the base period of a benefit year under General Statutes § 31-230;2 and (2) so interpreted, § 31-230 does *234not violate the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The plaintiff, Albert Molnar, was a part-time employee of Domino’s Pizza in May, 1988, when…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Greater Bridgeport Transit District v. State Board of Labor RelationsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
  2. Val-Pak of Central Connecticut North, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue ServicesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
  3. Molnar v. Administrator, Unemployment Comp. ActConnecticut Superior Court · 1995

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Lizotte v. WelkerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
  2. Walsh v. National Safety Associates, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
  3. Rafalowski v. Old County Road, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
  4. Town of Westport v. Connecticut Siting CouncilSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
  5. Halpern v. Board of EducationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1997

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

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

Powered by the Exa API