DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Showing 41–60 of 362 results

Forestier v. Bridgeport, 223 Conn. App. 298 (2024)

Forestier v. Bridgeport, 223 Conn. App. 298 (2024) Connecticut state

Forestier v. Bridgeport 223 Conn. App. 298 Date filed: 2024-01-16 Doctrine: retaliation Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9470346/forestier-v-bridgeport/ --- 010combined ---

Michel v. Hartford, 226 Conn. App. 98 (2024)

Michel v. Hartford, 226 Conn. App. 98 (2024) Connecticut state

Michel v. Hartford 226 Conn. App. 98 Date filed: 2024-06-11 Doctrine: retaliation Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10131855/michel-v-hartford/ --- 010combined ---

Lassen v. Hartford, 223 Conn. App. 285 (2024)

Lassen v. Hartford, 223 Conn. App. 285 (2024) Connecticut state

Lassen v. Hartford 223 Conn. App. 285 Date filed: 2024-01-09 Doctrine: retaliation Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9470351/lassen-v-hartford/ --- 010combined ---

Kenneson v. Eggert, 196 Conn. App. 773 (2020)

Kenneson v. Eggert, 196 Conn. App. 773 (2020) Connecticut state

Kenneson v. Eggert 196 Conn. App. 773 Date filed: 2020-03-31 Doctrine: retaliation Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4740248/kenneson-v-eggert/ --- 010combined ---

Cohen v. King, 206 A.3d 188 (2019)

Cohen v. King, 206 A.3d 188 (2019) Connecticut state

Cohen v. King 206 A.3d 188 Date filed: 2019-04-02 Doctrine: retaliation Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4605610/cohen-v-king/ --- 010combined ---

State v. Sinchak, 229 Conn. App. 38 (2024)

State v. Sinchak, 229 Conn. App. 38 (2024) Connecticut state

State v. Sinchak 229 Conn. App. 38 Date filed: 2024-11-05 Doctrine: retaliation Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10230471/state-v-sinchak/ --- 010combined ---

Carter v. Bowler, 211 Conn. App. 119 (2022)

Carter v. Bowler, 211 Conn. App. 119 (2022) Connecticut state

Carter v. Bowler 211 Conn. App. 119 Date filed: 2022-03-08 Doctrine: retaliation Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6448598/carter-v-bowler/ --- 010combined ---

Gentile-Riaz v. Samo Thraki, LLC (2025)

Gentile-Riaz v. Samo Thraki, LLC (2025) Connecticut state

Gentile-Riaz v. Samo Thraki, LLC (citation pending) Date filed: 2025-12-16 Doctrine: retaliation Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10758261/gentile-riaz-v-samo-thraki-llc/ --- 010combined ---

Blinkoff v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 20 A.3d 1272 (2011)

Blinkoff v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 20 A.3d 1272 (2011) Connecticut state

At the public hearing, the plaintiff contended that her business suffered and she had to hire attorneys as a result of retaliation by the city. In his decision, however, the referee found that the plaintiff failed to offer persuasive evidence...

Holdmeyer v. Thomas, 144 A.3d 1052 (2016)

Holdmeyer v. Thomas, 144 A.3d 1052 (2016) Connecticut state

Holdmeyer v. Thomas 144 A.3d 1052 Date filed: 2016-08-09 Doctrine: retaliation Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4243414/holdmeyer-v-thomas/ --- 010combined by Beach ---

Section 47a-20a

Correa v. Ward, 881 A.2d 393 (2005) Connecticut state

A review of trial court decisions reveals that only one court has allowed a party to rebut the presumption of retaliation on grounds other than those specifically listed in General Statutes § 47a-20a. In Leibovitz v. Smith,

Townsend v. Hardy, 164 A.3d 824 (2017)

Townsend v. Hardy, 164 A.3d 824 (2017) Connecticut state

Townsend v. Hardy 164 A.3d 824 Date filed: 2017-06-13 Doctrine: retaliation Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4397275/townsend-v-hardy/ --- 010combined by Sheldon ---

Cimmino v. Marcoccia, 211 A.3d 1013 (2019)

Cimmino v. Marcoccia, 211 A.3d 1013 (2019) Connecticut state

Cimmino v. Marcoccia 211 A.3d 1013 Date filed: 2019-07-30 Doctrine: retaliation Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4641800/cimmino-v-marcoccia/ --- 010combined by Blawie ---

Chamerda v. Opie, 197 A.3d 982 (2018)

Chamerda v. Opie, 197 A.3d 982 (2018) Connecticut state

Chamerda v. Opie 197 A.3d 982 Date filed: 2018-10-23 Doctrine: retaliation Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4545922/chamerda-v-opie/ --- 010combined by DiPENTIMA ---

State v. Davis, 175 A.3d 71 (2017)

State v. Davis, 175 A.3d 71 (2017) Connecticut state

State v. Davis 175 A.3d 71 Date filed: 2017-11-28 Doctrine: retaliation Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4446299/state-v-davis/ --- 010combined by Mullins ---

Murphy v. Baez, 515 A.2d 383 (1986)

Murphy v. Baez, 515 A.2d 383 (1986) Connecticut state

The defendant maintains that under § 47a-20 of the General Statutes a presumption of retaliation is created in this case because the defendant complained to the *472

Section 47a-20a

Correa v. Ward, 881 A.2d 393 (2005) Connecticut state

The court nonetheless found that the plaintiff had rebutted the presumption of retaliation on the basis of his showing that the defendant had used foul language and recanted an oral agreement to pay one half of the *149

Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)

Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012) Connecticut state

protected activity and retaliation sufficient to support inference of causation). Termination within several months of the time the allegedly protected activity 5

Loftus v. Vincent, 49 Conn. App. 66 (1998)

Loftus v. Vincent, 49 Conn. App. 66 (1998) Connecticut state

Loftus v. Vincent 49 Conn. App. 66 Date filed: 1998-06-16 Doctrine: retaliation Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7909285/loftus-v-vincent/ --- 020lead by Shea --- Opinion