Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2009

Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. v. Randall

Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. v. Randall
Supreme Court of Connecticut · Decided October 13, 2009 · Rogers
981 A.2d 1078; 293 Conn. 934; 2009 Conn. LEXIS 475 (Atlantic Reporter, Second Series)

Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. v. Randall

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.

↑