Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1996–2014 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc.green2 sentences2014Indeed, com- mon-law punitive damages are akin to statutorily authorized attorney’s fees in practicality and purpose, insofar as both ‘‘provide the same relief and serve the same function’’;13 Harty v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., 275 Conn. 72 , 99-100, 881 A.2d 139 (2005); namely, fully compensating injured parties.14 Berry v. Loiseau, supra, 827 ; see also Harty v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., supra, 97-98 (characterizing double damages under General Statutes § 31-72 as more punitive in nature than com- mon-law punitive damages); Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 265 Conn. 210, 273 , 828 A.2d 6 2014Indeed, com- mon-law punitive damages are akin to statutorily authorized attorney’s fees in practicality and purpose, insofar as both ‘‘provide the same relief and serve the same function’’;13 Harty v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., 275 Conn. 72 , 99-100, 881 A.2d 139 (2005); namely, fully compensating injured parties.14 Berry v. Loiseau, supra, 827 ; see also Harty v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., supra, 97-98 (characterizing double damages under General Statutes § 31-72 as more punitive in nature than com- mon-law punitive damages); Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 265 Conn. 210, 273 , 828 A.2d 6 | 1 | 3 |
Harewood v. Cartergreen2 sentences2008See Harewood v. Carter, 63 Conn. App. 199, 207 , 772 A.2d 764 (2001). 2008See Harewood v. Carter, 63 Conn. App. 199, 207 , 772 A.2d 764 (2001). | 1 | 1 |
Freeman v. Alamo Management Co.green2 sentences2005See Freeman v. Alamo Management Co., 221 Conn. 674, 675 , 607 A.2d 370 (1992) (referring to double damages under General Statutes § 47a-46 as “statutory punitive damages”). 11 fGeneral Statutes § 52-564 provides: “Any person who steals any property of another, or knowingly receives and conceals stolen property, shall pay the owner treble his damages.” 12 We disagree with the defendant’s argument that the same type of conduct is required for double damages under § 31-72 as is required for common-law punitive damages. 2005See Freeman v. Alamo Management Co., 221 Conn. 674, 675 , 607 A.2d 370 (1992) (referring to double damages under General Statutes § 47a-46 as “statutory punitive damages”). 11 fGeneral Statutes § 52-564 provides: “Any person who steals any property of another, or knowingly receives and conceals stolen property, shall pay the owner treble his damages.” 12 We disagree with the defendant’s argument that the same type of conduct is required for double damages under § 31-72 as is required for common-law punitive damages. | 1 | 1 |
Ames v. Commissionergreen2 sentences2005See Ames v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 267 Conn. 524, 531, 536 , 839 A.2d 1250 (2004) (concluding “that the term ‘any loss,’ as used in § 14-52 [b] [4], is facially susceptible to more than one interpretation” and does not encompass statutory treble damages because such damages are extraordinary remedy, there was no express statutory language providing for indemnification for “punitive damages” and legislature has stated expressly when it intends to confer right to punitive damages in other statutes); compare, e.g., General Statutes § 4d-39; General Statutes § 16-8d; General Statutes § 19 2005See Ames v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 267 Conn. 524, 531, 536 , 839 A.2d 1250 (2004) (concluding “that the term ‘any loss,’ as used in § 14-52 [b] [4], is facially susceptible to more than one interpretation” and does not encompass statutory treble damages because such damages are extraordinary remedy, there was no express statutory language providing for indemnification for “punitive damages” and legislature has stated expressly when it intends to confer right to punitive damages in other statutes); compare, e.g., General Statutes § 4d-39; General Statutes § 16-8d; General Statutes § 19 | 1 | 1 |
Label Systems Corp. v. Samad Aghamohammadigreen2 sentences2005Compare Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 265 Conn. 210, 269 , 828 A.2d 64 (2003) (double damages under § 31-72 maybe awarded only upon finding of “bad faith, arbitrariness or unreasonableness” [internal quotation marks omitted]) with Label Systems Corp. v. Aghamohammadi, 270 Conn. 291, 335 , 852 A.2d 703 (2004) (common-law punitive damages awarded for “wanton or wilful malicious misconduct”); Alaimo v. Royer, supra, 188 Conn. 42 (common-law “[pjunitive damages are awarded when the evidence shows a reckless indifference to the rights of others or an intentional and wanton violation of tho 2005Compare Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 265 Conn. 210, 269 , 828 A.2d 64 (2003) (double damages under § 31-72 maybe awarded only upon finding of “bad faith, arbitrariness or unreasonableness” [internal quotation marks omitted]) with Label Systems Corp. v. Aghamohammadi, 270 Conn. 291, 335 , 852 A.2d 703 (2004) (common-law punitive damages awarded for “wanton or wilful malicious misconduct”); Alaimo v. Royer, supra, 188 Conn. 42 (common-law “[pjunitive damages are awarded when the evidence shows a reckless indifference to the rights of others or an intentional and wanton violation of tho | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Schieffergreen2 sentences2000See Anderson v. Schieffer, 35 Conn. App. 31, 43 , 645 A.2d 549 (1994). 2000See Anderson v. Schieffer, 35 Conn. App. 31, 43 , 645 A.2d 549 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sansone v. Clifford
green
2 sentences2000Section 31-72 provides for double damages and attorney’s fees in unpaid wage cases. 6 Our case law holds that “awards for double damages and attorney’s fees are inappropriate in the absence of the trial court’s finding of bad faith, arbitrariness or unreasonableness.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sansone v. Clifford, 219 Conn. 217, 229 , 592 A.2d 931 (1991). 2000Section 31-72 provides for double damages and attorney’s fees in unpaid wage cases. 6 Our case law holds that “awards for double damages and attorney’s fees are inappropriate in the absence of the trial court’s finding of bad faith, arbitrariness or unreasonableness.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sansone v. Clifford, 219 Conn. 217, 229 , 592 A.2d 931 (1991). | 5 | 1996–2000 |
Harty v. Cantor Fitzgerald and Co.
green
2 sentences2014Indeed, com- mon-law punitive damages are akin to statutorily authorized attorney’s fees in practicality and purpose, insofar as both ‘‘provide the same relief and serve the same function’’;13 Harty v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., 275 Conn. 72 , 99-100, 881 A.2d 139 (2005); namely, fully compensating injured parties.14 Berry v. Loiseau, supra, 827 ; see also Harty v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., supra, 97-98 (characterizing double damages under General Statutes § 31-72 as more punitive in nature than com- mon-law punitive damages); Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 265 Conn. 210, 273 , 828 A.2d 6 2014Indeed, com- mon-law punitive damages are akin to statutorily authorized attorney’s fees in practicality and purpose, insofar as both ‘‘provide the same relief and serve the same function’’;13 Harty v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., 275 Conn. 72 , 99-100, 881 A.2d 139 (2005); namely, fully compensating injured parties.14 Berry v. Loiseau, supra, 827 ; see also Harty v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., supra, 97-98 (characterizing double damages under General Statutes § 31-72 as more punitive in nature than com- mon-law punitive damages); Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 265 Conn. 210, 273 , 828 A.2d 6 | 4 | 2009–2014 |
Butler ex rel. Skidmore v. Hartford Technical Institute, Inc.
green
2 sentences1998Butler v. Hartford Technical Institute , 243 Conn. 454 , 470 (1997); Sansone v. Clifford , 219 Conn. 217 , 229 (1991) (finding of no bad faith where employee never submitted a bill and did not make written demand for payment of his salary.) In Butler , the Supreme Court upheld an award of double damages, pointing to the fact that the employee had provided supporting documentation to the employer; that the employer had requested the employee to work additional hours with an assurance that she would be paid; and that the employer subsequently failed to make the promised payment. 243 Conn. at 471 1998Butler v. Hartford Technical Institute , 243 Conn. 454 , 470 (1997); Sansone v. Clifford , 219 Conn. 217 , 229 (1991) (finding of no bad faith where employee never submitted a bill and did not make written demand for payment of his salary.) In Butler , the Supreme Court upheld an award of double damages, pointing to the fact that the employee had provided supporting documentation to the employer; that the employer had requested the employee to work additional hours with an assurance that she would be paid; and that the employer subsequently failed to make the promised payment. 243 Conn. at 471 | 2 | 1998–1998 |
Willow Springs Condominium Ass'n v. Seventh BRT Development Corp.
green
2 sentences2005It is a well established principle that arguments cannot be raised for the first time in a reply brief.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Willow Springs Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Seventh BRT Development Corp., 245 Conn. 1 , 48 n.42, 717 A.2d 77 (1998). 10 As the trial court properly noted, our statutes are replete with provisions for damages expressly designated as "punitive,” thus suggesting that, to the extent that such a factor is relevant to this inquiry, the legislature has not deemed the double damages under § 31-72 to be punitive damages. 2005It is a well established principle that arguments cannot be raised for the first time in a reply brief.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Willow Springs Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Seventh BRT Development Corp., 245 Conn. 1 , 48 n.42, 717 A.2d 77 (1998). 10 As the trial court properly noted, our statutes are replete with provisions for damages expressly designated as "punitive,” thus suggesting that, to the extent that such a factor is relevant to this inquiry, the legislature has not deemed the double damages under § 31-72 to be punitive damages. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.