Molnar v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act
Supreme Court of Connecticut
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
- Greater Bridgeport Transit District v. State Board of Labor RelationsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- Val-Pak of Central Connecticut North, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue ServicesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
- Molnar v. Administrator, Unemployment Comp. ActConnecticut Superior Court · 1995
3Cited by10 opinions
- Lizotte v. WelkerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
- Walsh v. National Safety Associates, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
- Rafalowski v. Old County Road, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
- Town of Westport v. Connecticut Siting CouncilSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
- Halpern v. Board of EducationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.