Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. v. Randall

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. v. Randall, 293 Conn. 913 (Conn. 2009)
978 A.2d 1110; 2009 Conn. LEXIS 438

Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. v. Randall

Opinion of the Court

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:

“Whether the Appellate Court properly determined that the trial court properly supplied purported missing terms to a restrictive covenant in the subject employment agreement without resorting to the equitable remedy of reformation?”

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

Sheila A. Huddleston, Glenn M. Cunningham and Lee A. Duval, in opposition. Decided September 9, 2009

Reference

Full Case Name
HILB ROGAL AND HOBBS COMPANY v. UTA PETERS RANDALL
Status
Published