Loughlin v. Loughlin, 895 A.2d 798 (Conn. 2006). · Go Syfert
Search
Loughlin v. Loughlin, 895 A.2d 798 (Conn. 2006). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“a cutpa violation may not arise out of conduct that is merely incidental to the performance of one's trade or commerce”
42 citation events (42 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Sovereign Bank v. Licata (connappct, 2009-08-18)
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2006 2016 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Sovereign Bank v. Licata
Conn. App. Ct. · 2009 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
a cutpa violation may not arise out of conduct that is merely incidental to the performance of one's trade or commerce
discussed Cited "see" Jefferson Solar, LLC v. FuelCell Energy, Inc.
Conn. App. Ct. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See AAIS Corp. v. Dept. of Administrative Services, 93 Conn. App. 327 , 332–33, 888 A.2d 1127 (unsuccessful bidder lacked standing to seek injunctive relief because there was ‘‘no allegation that any ex parte communications with other bidders took place or that the department was favoring the use of one brand of product over another in the bidding process’’), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 927 , 895 A.2d 798 (2006).
discussed Cited "see" Meadowbrook Center, Inc. v. Buchman (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
Although this court has intimated that causation is an additional element thereof; see McCann Real Equities Series XXII, LLC v. David McDermott Chevrolet, Inc., 93 Conn. App. 486, 503-604 , 890 A.2d 140 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 928 , 895 A.2d 798 (2006); proof of causation more properly is classified as part and parcel of a party’s claim for breach of contract damages.
discussed Cited "see" Biro v. Matz
Conn. App. Ct. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See McCann Real Equities Series XXII, LLC v. David McDermott Chevrolet, Inc., 93 Conn. App. 486, 514-15 , 890 A.2d 140 (buyers’ claimed reliance on sellers’ misrepresentation not reasonably justifiable when buyers contractually agreed to rely on their own investigation and examination of premises and not on any representations made by sellers), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 928 , 895 A.2d 798 (2006); Visconti v. Pepper Partners Ltd.
cited Cited "see" Warning Lights & Scaffold Service, Inc. v. O & G Industries, Inc.
Conn. App. Ct. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See McCann Real Equities Series XXII, LLC v. David McDermott Chevrolet, Inc., 93 Conn. App. 486, 503-504 , 890 A.2d 140 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 928 , 895 A.2d 798 (2006).
discussed Cited "see" Pinette v. McLaughlin
Conn. App. Ct. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See McCann Real Equities Series XXII, LLC v. David McDermott Chevrolet, Inc., 93 Conn. App. 486, 490, 520 , 890 A.2d 140 (“ [i]t is fundamental in our law that the right of a plaintiff to recover is limited to the allegations of his complaint” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 928 , 895 A.2d 798 (2006).
cited Cited "see" Sander v. Sander
Conn. App. Ct. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Loughlin v. Loughlin, 93 Conn. App. 618, 640 , 889 A.2d 902 , cert. granted on other grounds, 277 Conn. 926 , 895 A.2d 798 (2006).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Scrivani v. Vallombroso
Conn. App. Ct. · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence low
The language ‘as a result of requires a showing that the prohibited act was the proximate cause of a harm to the plaintiff.” (Emphasis in original.) Abrahams v. Young & Rubicam, Inc., 240 Conn. 300, 306 , 692 A.2d 709 (1997); see also McCann Real Equities Series XXII, LLC v. David McDermott Chevrolet, Inc., 93 Conn. App. 486, 520 , 890 A.2d 140 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 928 , 895 A.2d 798 (2006).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Sharon Loughlin
v.
William Loughlin, Jr.
SC 17634.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Mar 23, 2006.
895 A.2d 798
Jeffrey D. Ginzberg, in support of the petition., William F. Gallagher, in opposition.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 72%
Citer courts: Connecticut Appellate Court (1)

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 93 Conn. App. 618 (AC 25611), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court had improperly relied on the total length of the parties’ relationship in fashioning its financial orders?

“2. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court had improperly relied on the presence of the parties’ adult children and grandchild in the home in fashioning its alimony award?”