Ruckgaber v. Clark
Supreme Court of Connecticut
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
The commissioner’s finding, amplified by the single minor correction made by the Superior Court, contains these material facts: The plaintiff and her husband were employed by Mrs. Clark, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, as domestics in her home in Darien for the joint compensation of $150 per month plus room and board for both. The job was a full time one although the more active duties were performed between 6:30 a.m. and 8:30 p.m. At all times, the plaintiff was required to give attention to the defendant’s seven-months-old baby in addition to doing the cooking and upstairs work.…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Larke v. John Hancock Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1916
- Palumbo v. George A. Fuller Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1923
- Stakonis v. United Advertising CorporationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1930
- Marchiatello v. Lynch Realty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1919
- Ryerson v. A. E. Bounty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1928
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Brookhaven Steam Laundry v. WattsMississippi Supreme Court · 1952
- Dombach v. Olkon Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1972
- Katz v. KatzSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1950
- Kish v. Nursing & Home Care, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
- Kuharski v. Bristol Brass CorporationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1946
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.