Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. v. Randall

Supreme Court of Connecticut October 13, 2009

Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. v. Randall, 981 A.2d 1078 (Conn. 2009)

293 Conn. 934; 2009 Conn. LEXIS 475

Rogers

Opinion

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 115 Conn. App. 89 (AC 29572), is granted, limited to the following issue:

*935 The Supreme Court docket number is SC 18444. Scott S. Centrella, in support of the petition. Sheila A. Huddleston, Glenn M. Cunningham and Lee A. Duval, in opposition. Decided October 13, 2009

“Whether the Appellate Court properly determined that the trial court should have supplied missing words in a nonsolicitation provision in an employment agreement without resorting to the equitable remedy of reformation because the parties’ intent to prohibit the conduct at issue was clear?”

ROGERS, C. J., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.

Reference

Full Case Name: Hilb Rogal and Hobbs Company Et Al. v. Uta Peters Randall
Status: Published