Family Financial Services, Inc. v. Spencer (1996)

green · 71 citation events across 7 courts. Showing the 8 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).

All Green 8

Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then

199720112026

Sort: By significance · Most recent

green Mastroianni v. Fairfield County Paving, LLC (2008)

Quote Authority · Conn. App. Ct. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion

See Family Financial Services, Inc. v. Spencer, 41 Conn. App. 754, 763 , 677 A.2d 479 (1996) (“The purpose of *338 the doctrine of unconscionability is to prevent oppression and unfair surprise.

“The purpose of *338 the doctrine of unconscionability is to prevent oppression and unfair surprise. J. Calamari & J. Perillo, Contracts [3d Ed.] § 9-40.”

green Utah First Federal Credit Union v. Dudley (2012)

Rule Authority · Utah Ct. App.

Servs., Inc. v. Spencer, 41 Conn.App. 754 , 677 A.2d 479, 488 (1995) (stating that the security interest automatically became void upon the bank's receipt of a valid rescission).

stating that the security interest automatically became void upon the bank's receipt of a valid rescission

green Sprague v. Household International (2005)

Rule Authority · W.D. Mo.

Servs., Inc. v. Spencer, 41 Conn. App. 754 , 677 A.2d 479, 485 (1996) (finding that contract was procedurally unconscionable, in part because the party was rushed in signing it). 2.

finding that contract was procedurally unconscionable, in part because the party was rushed in signing it

green Farias v. Rodriguez (2026)

Cited (see also) · Conn. App. Ct. · signal: see, e.g. · 2 citations in this opinion

Although an enact- ment cannot be applied retroactively when a vested right intervenes; see, e.g., Family Financial Services, Inc. v. Spencer, 41 Conn. App. 754, 767 , 677 A.2d 479 (1996) (concluding that statutory amendment could not be applied retroactively because it would produce substantial change in defendant’s vested rights in pend- ing action); in the present case, the plaintiff did not have any vested property interest in a purely statutory cause of action that had …

concluding that statutory amendment could not be applied retroactively because it would produce substantial change in defendant’s vested rights in pend- ing action

green Pierce v. Emigrant Mortgage Co. (2006)

Cited · D. Conn. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion

See Monetary Funding Group, Inc. v. Pluchino, 87 Conn.App. 401, 411-412 , 867 A.2d 841 (Conn.App.2005) (quoting Family Financial Services, Inc. v. Spencer, 41 Conn. App. 754, 762-63 , 677 A.2d 479 (1996)); see also Cheshire Mortgage Service, Inc. v. Montes, 223 Conn. 80, 87-89 , 612 A.2d 1130 (1992).

green Levesque Builders, Inc. v. Hoerle (1998)

Cited · Conn. App. Ct. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion

See Family Financial Services, Inc. v. Spencer, 41 Conn. App. 754, 772 , 677 A.2d 479 (1996).

green SKW Real Estate Ltd. Partnership v. Gallicchio (1998)

Cited (see also) · Conn. App. Ct. · signal: see also · 2 citations in this opinion

We agree, however, with the defendants that the plaintiff failed to present any evidence at trial to satisfy the “ ‘undisputed requirement that the reasonableness of attorney’s fees and costs must be proven by an appropriate evidentiary showing.’ ” Barco Auto Leasing Corp. v. House, 202 Conn. 106, 121 , 520 A.2d 162 (1987); see also Family Financial Services, Inc. v. Spencer, 41 Conn. App. 754, 771 , 677 A.2d 479 (1996).

green Malizia v. Marini, No. Cv 96 0152381 (Nov. 28, 1997) (1997)

Cited · Conn. Super. Ct. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion

See Family Financial Services, Inc. v. Spenser, 41 Conn. App. 754 , 771-72 , 677 A.2d 479 (1996).