Section 31-51q

Citation: Section 31-51q
Parent Document: Cotto v. United Technologies Corp., 251 Conn. 1 (1999)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 1999-10-12
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7898264/cotto-v-united-technologies-corp/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (143)

Cotto v. United Technologies Corp., 251 Conn. 1 (1999)
Cotto v. United Technologies Corp., 251 Conn. 1 (1999)
Cotto v. United Technologies Corp., 251 Conn. 1 (1999)
Cotto v. United Technologies Corp., 251 Conn. 1 (1999)
Cotto v. United Technologies Corp., 251 Conn. 1 (1999)
Cotto v. United Technologies Corp., 251 Conn. 1 (1999)
Cotto v. United Technologies Corp., 251 Conn. 1 (1999)
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q
Section 31-51q

Full Text

638 chars

Furthermore, even if that were the sum of the defendant’s argument, we have never considered ourselves barred from a proper interpretation of a statute by the litigants’ specific assertions. Moreover, the defendant’s position, properly understood, simply mirrors the reasoning of the trial court in this case, and the reasoning of Judge Hennessy’s concurring opinion in the Appellate Court. See Cotto v. United Technologies Corp., 48 Conn App. 618, 632, 711 A.2d 1180 (1998) (Hennessy, J., concurring). It is difficult to understand why we should read the defendant’s reliance on those opinions more narrowly than the opinions themselves.