DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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)

Full Text

645 chars 
With respect to the comments of Senators Skowronski, Matthews and Streeter, I note that we do not ordinarily weigh heavily the remarks of opponents of a bill in determining its legislative intent because opponents may be motivated to point out difficulties that may arise if the legislative language is subsequently interpreted in a way contrary to the intent of its sponsors. Furthermore, the sponsors’ lack of a response to the opponents’ arguments is consistent with the view that, because the statute was not intended to reach beyond the constitutional rights as generally understood, the difficulties raised by the opponents were not valid.