Legal Opinion

Ruckgaber v. Clark

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided November 8, 1944PublishedCited by 12 opinions

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

  1. Larke v. John Hancock Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1916
  2. Palumbo v. George A. Fuller Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1923
  3. Stakonis v. United Advertising CorporationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1930
  4. Marchiatello v. Lynch Realty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1919
  5. Ryerson v. A. E. Bounty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1928

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Brookhaven Steam Laundry v. WattsMississippi Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Dombach v. Olkon Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1972
  3. Katz v. KatzSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1950
  4. Kish v. Nursing & Home Care, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
  5. Kuharski v. Bristol Brass CorporationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1946

7 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