Case ID: conn_293/html/0934-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HILB ROGAL AND HOBBS COMPANY ET AL. v. UTA PETERS RANDALL
   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:

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.