practice amounting violation in Connecticut

2002Thus a violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice . . . or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy." (Citations omitted.) Jacobs v. Healey Ford-Subaru, Inc. , 231 Conn. 707 , 725-26 , 652 A.2d 496 (1995).

2002Thus a violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice . . . or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy." (Citations omitted.) Jacobs v. Healey Ford-Subaru, Inc. , 231 Conn. 707 , 725-26 , 652 A.2d 496 (1995).

2005Thus a violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice ... or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Cheshire Mortgage Service, Inc. v. Montes, 223 Conn. 80, 106 , 612 A.2d 1130 (1992).

2005Thus a violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice ... or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Cheshire Mortgage Service, Inc. v. Montes, 223 Conn. 80, 106 , 612 A.2d 1130 (1992).

2001A practice may be unfair because of the degree to which it meets one of the criteria or because to a lesser extent it CT Page 1039 meets all three." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Willow Springs Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Seventh BRT Development Corp. , 245 Conn. 1 , 43 , 717 A.2d 77 (1998). "[A] violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice . . . or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy. . . .Furthermore, a party need not prove an intent to deceive to prevail under CUTPA." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.

2001A practice may be unfair because of the degree to which it meets one of the criteria or because to a lesser extent it CT Page 1039 meets all three." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Willow Springs Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Seventh BRT Development Corp. , 245 Conn. 1 , 43 , 717 A.2d 77 (1998). "[A] violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice . . . or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy. . . .Furthermore, a party need not prove an intent to deceive to prevail under CUTPA." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.

2003Thus a violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice . . . or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Saturn Construction Co. v. Premier Roofing Co. , 238 Conn. 293 , 311 , 680 A.2d 1274 (1996).

2003Thus a violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice . . . or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Saturn Construction Co. v. Premier Roofing Co. , 238 Conn. 293 , 311 , 680 A.2d 1274 (1996).

1997Thus a violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice . . . or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy. . . ." Haynes v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, 243 Conn. 17 , 33 n. 18, (1997), quoting Associated Investment Co. v. Williams Associates IV, 230 Conn. 148 , 155-56 , 645 A.2d 505 (1994).

1997Thus a violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice . . . or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy. . . ." Haynes v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, 243 Conn. 17 , 33 n. 18, (1997), quoting Associated Investment Co. v. Williams Associates IV, 230 Conn. 148 , 155-56 , 645 A.2d 505 (1994).

2002Conaway v. Prestia , 191 Conn. 484 (1983).

1991In Conaway v. Prestia, 191 Conn. 484 , (1983) the Connecticut Supreme Court quoted FTC v. Sperry Hutchinson Co., 405 U.S. 233 , 244n. in enumerating the factors to be considered in a CUTPA evaluation: "`(1) whether the practice, without necessarily having been previously considered unlawful, offends public policy as it has been established by statutes, the common law, or otherwise — whether, in other words, it is within at least the penumbra of some common law, statutory, or other established concept of unfairness; (2) whether it is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; (3) whether

2017Thus a violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice ... or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Ramirez v. Health Net of the Northeast, Inc. , 285 Conn. 1 , 18-19, 938 A.2d 576 (2008).

2017Thus a violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice ... or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Ramirez v. Health Net of the Northeast, Inc. , 285 Conn. 1 , 18-19, 938 A.2d 576 (2008).

2004A violation of CUTPA, therefore, may be established by showing “either an actual deceptive practice ... or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy.” (Citation omitted.) Web Press Services Corp. v. New London Motors, Inc., 203 Conn. 342, 355 , 525 A.2d 57 , following remand, 205 Conn. 479 , 533 A.2d 1211 (1987).

2004A violation of CUTPA, therefore, may be established by showing “either an actual deceptive practice ... or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy.” (Citation omitted.) Web Press Services Corp. v. New London Motors, Inc., 203 Conn. 342, 355 , 525 A.2d 57 , following remand, 205 Conn. 479 , 533 A.2d 1211 (1987).

2010Thus a violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice ... or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Harris v. Bradley Memorial Hospital & Health Center, Inc., 296 Conn. 315, 350-51 , 994 A.2d 153 (2010).

2010Thus a violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice ... or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Harris v. Bradley Memorial Hospital & Health Center, Inc., 296 Conn. 315, 350-51 , 994 A.2d 153 (2010).

2005Thus a violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice ... or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Journal Publishing Co. v. Hartford Courant Co., 261 Conn. 673, 695-96 , 804 A.2d 823 (2002).

2005Thus a violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice ... or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Journal Publishing Co. v. Hartford Courant Co., 261 Conn. 673, 695-96 , 804 A.2d 823 (2002).

2001A practice may be unfair because of the degree to which it meets one of the criteria or because to a lesser extent it meets all three." Hartford Electric Supply Co. v. Allen-Bradley CT Page 4350 Co., 250 Conn. 334 , 368 , 736 A.2d 824 (1999). "[A] violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice . . . or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy. . . ." Ancona v. Manafort Bros., Inc., 56 Conn. App. 701 , 714 , 746 A.2d 184 , cert. denied. 252 Conn. 954 , 746 A.2d 184 (2000).

2001A practice may be unfair because of the degree to which it meets one of the criteria or because to a lesser extent it meets all three." Hartford Electric Supply Co. v. Allen-Bradley CT Page 4350 Co., 250 Conn. 334 , 368 , 736 A.2d 824 (1999). "[A] violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice . . . or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy. . . ." Ancona v. Manafort Bros., Inc., 56 Conn. App. 701 , 714 , 746 A.2d 184 , cert. denied. 252 Conn. 954 , 746 A.2d 184 (2000).

2026Thus a viola- tion of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice . . . or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Herron v. Daniels, 208 Conn. App. 75 , 94–95, 264 A.3d 184 (2021).11 “It is well settled that whether a defendant’s acts con- stitute . . . deceptive or unfair trade practices under CUTPA, is a question of fact for the trier, to which, on appellate review, we accord our customary deference.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 96.

2022In order to enforce this prohibition, CUTPA provides a private cause of action to [a]ny per- son who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment of a [prohibited] method, act or practice . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Herron v. Daniels, 208 Conn. App. 75 , 94–95, 264 A.3d 184 (2021).

2022Although ‘‘a breach of contract may form the basis for a CUTPA claim’’; id., 410; ‘‘not every contractual breach rises to the level of a CUTPA violation.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Naples v. Keystone Build- ing & Development Corp., 295 Conn. 214, 228 , 990 A.2d 326 (2010). ‘‘CUTPA was intended to provide a remedy that is separate and distinct from the remedies pro- vided by contract law when the defendant’s contractual breach was accompanied by aggravating circum- stances.’’ (Emphasis added.) Ulbrich v. Groth, supra, 310 Conn. 411 .

2022Although ‘‘a breach of contract may form the basis for a CUTPA claim’’; id., 410; ‘‘not every contractual breach rises to the level of a CUTPA violation.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Naples v. Keystone Build- ing & Development Corp., 295 Conn. 214, 228 , 990 A.2d 326 (2010). ‘‘CUTPA was intended to provide a remedy that is separate and distinct from the remedies pro- vided by contract law when the defendant’s contractual breach was accompanied by aggravating circum- stances.’’ (Emphasis added.) Ulbrich v. Groth, supra, 310 Conn. 411 .

2017The defendant also argues that the water customer service charge was an unfair or deceptive trade practice within the meaning of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., and, therefore, its inclusion in the rent was improper. "[A] violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice ... or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gebbie v. Cadle Co ., 49 Conn.App. 265 , 279, 714 A.2d 678 (1998).

2017The defendant also argues that the water customer service charge was an unfair or deceptive trade practice within the meaning of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., and, therefore, its inclusion in the rent was improper. "[A] violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice ... or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gebbie v. Cadle Co ., 49 Conn.App. 265 , 279, 714 A.2d 678 (1998).

2009Its purpose “is to protect the public from unfair practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce . . . .” Eder Bros., Inc. v. Wine Merchants of Connecticut, Inc., 275 Conn. 363, 380 , 880 A.2d 138 (2005). “[A] violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice ... or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Glazer v. Dress Barn, Inc., 274 Conn. 33, 82-83 , 873 A.2d 929 (2005).

2009Its purpose “is to protect the public from unfair practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce . . . .” Eder Bros., Inc. v. Wine Merchants of Connecticut, Inc., 275 Conn. 363, 380 , 880 A.2d 138 (2005). “[A] violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice ... or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Glazer v. Dress Barn, Inc., 274 Conn. 33, 82-83 , 873 A.2d 929 (2005).

2001"Whether a practice is unfair and thus violates CUTPA is an issue of fact. . . .The facts found must be viewed within the context of the totality of circumstances which are uniquely available to the trial court." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Thames River Recycling, Inc. v. Gallo , 50 Conn. App. 767 , 794 , 720 A.2d 242 (1998).

2001"Whether a practice is unfair and thus violates CUTPA is an issue of fact. . . .The facts found must be viewed within the context of the totality of circumstances which are uniquely available to the trial court." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Thames River Recycling, Inc. v. Gallo , 50 Conn. App. 767 , 794 , 720 A.2d 242 (1998).

2001Thus, a violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice ... or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Kenney v. Healey Ford-Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 53 Conn. App. 327, 330 , 730 A.2d 115 (1999).

2001Thus, a violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice ... or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Kenney v. Healey Ford-Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 53 Conn. App. 327, 330 , 730 A.2d 115 (1999).

2001A practice may be unfair because of the degree to which it meets one of the criteria or because to a lesser extent it meets all three." Hartford Electric Supply Co. v. Allen-Bradley CT Page 4350 Co., 250 Conn. 334 , 368 , 736 A.2d 824 (1999). "[A] violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice . . . or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy. . . ." Ancona v. Manafort Bros., Inc., 56 Conn. App. 701 , 714 , 746 A.2d 184 , cert. denied. 252 Conn. 954 , 746 A.2d 184 (2000).

2001A practice may be unfair because of the degree to which it meets one of the criteria or because to a lesser extent it meets all three." Hartford Electric Supply Co. v. Allen-Bradley CT Page 4350 Co., 250 Conn. 334 , 368 , 736 A.2d 824 (1999). "[A] violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice . . . or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy. . . ." Ancona v. Manafort Bros., Inc., 56 Conn. App. 701 , 714 , 746 A.2d 184 , cert. denied. 252 Conn. 954 , 746 A.2d 184 (2000).

1999“A failure to disclose can be deceptive only if, in light of all the circumstances, there is a duty to disclose.” Normand Josef Enterprises, Inc. v. Connecticut National Bank, 230 Conn. 486, 523 , 646 A.2d 1289 (1994). “[Wjhere the legal conclusions of the court are challenged, we must determine whether they are legally and logically correct and whether they find support in the facts set out in the memorandum of decision; where the factual basis of the court’s decision is challenged we must determine whether the facts set out in the memorandum of decision are supported by the evidence or wheth

1999“A failure to disclose can be deceptive only if, in light of all the circumstances, there is a duty to disclose.” Normand Josef Enterprises, Inc. v. Connecticut National Bank, 230 Conn. 486, 523 , 646 A.2d 1289 (1994). “[Wjhere the legal conclusions of the court are challenged, we must determine whether they are legally and logically correct and whether they find support in the facts set out in the memorandum of decision; where the factual basis of the court’s decision is challenged we must determine whether the facts set out in the memorandum of decision are supported by the evidence or wheth

1990A practice may be unfair because of the degree to which it meets one of the criteria or because to a lesser extent it meets all three." Atlantic Ritchfield Co. v. Canaan Oil Co., 202 Conn. 234 , CT Page 927 242 (1987).

1990All three criteria need not be satisfied to support a finding of unfairness and "[a] practice may be unfair because of the degree to which it meets one of the criteria or because to a lesser extent it meets all three." Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Cannan Oil Co., 202 Conn. 234 , 242 (1987). ". . .[A] violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice. . .or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy." Web Press, 203 Conn. at 355 .

2026In order to enforce this prohibition, CUTPA provides a private cause of action to [a]ny person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment of a [prohibited] method, act or practice . . . .” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omit- ted.) Freidburg v. Kurtz, 210 Conn. App. 420 , 432–33, 270 A.3d 135 (2022).

2013Thus, a violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice ... or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Bruno v. Whipple, 138 Conn. App. 496, 516 , 54 A.3d 184 (2012).

2013Thus, a violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice ... or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Bruno v. Whipple, 138 Conn. App. 496, 516 , 54 A.3d 184 (2012).

2010“It is well settled that whether a defendant’s acts constitute . . . deceptive or unfair trade practices under CUTPA, is a question of fact for the trier, to which, on appellate review, we accord our customary deference. . . . [Wjhere the factual basis of the court’s *835 decision is challenged we must determine whether the facts set out in the memorandum of decision are supported by the evidence or whether, in light of the evidence and the pleadings in the whole record, those facts are clearly erroneous.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Chamlink Corp. v. Merritt Extruder Corp., 96 Conn. A

2010“It is well settled that whether a defendant’s acts constitute . . . deceptive or unfair trade practices under CUTPA, is a question of fact for the trier, to which, on appellate review, we accord our customary deference. . . . [Wjhere the factual basis of the court’s *835 decision is challenged we must determine whether the facts set out in the memorandum of decision are supported by the evidence or whether, in light of the evidence and the pleadings in the whole record, those facts are clearly erroneous.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Chamlink Corp. v. Merritt Extruder Corp., 96 Conn. A

2009Its purpose “is to protect the public from unfair practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce . . . .” Eder Bros., Inc. v. Wine Merchants of Connecticut, Inc., 275 Conn. 363, 380 , 880 A.2d 138 (2005). “[A] violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice ... or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Glazer v. Dress Barn, Inc., 274 Conn. 33, 82-83 , 873 A.2d 929 (2005).

2009Its purpose “is to protect the public from unfair practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce . . . .” Eder Bros., Inc. v. Wine Merchants of Connecticut, Inc., 275 Conn. 363, 380 , 880 A.2d 138 (2005). “[A] violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice ... or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Glazer v. Dress Barn, Inc., 274 Conn. 33, 82-83 , 873 A.2d 929 (2005).

2009In order to enforce this prohibition, CUTPA provides a private cause of action to [a]ny person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or *322 property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment of a [prohibited] method, act or practice . . . .” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Kendall v. Amster, 108 Conn. App. 319, 328-29 , 948 A.2d 1041 (2008).

2009In order to enforce this prohibition, CUTPA provides a private cause of action to [a]ny person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or *322 property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment of a [prohibited] method, act or practice . . . .” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Kendall v. Amster, 108 Conn. App. 319, 328-29 , 948 A.2d 1041 (2008).

2008“In order to enforce this prohibition, CUTPA provides a private cause of action to [a]ny person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment of a [prohibited] method, act or practice . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Stevenson Lumber Co.-Suffield, Inc. v. Chase Associates, Inc., 284 Conn. 205, 213-14 , 932 A.2d 401 (2007), quoting General Statutes § 42-110g (a).

2008“In order to enforce this prohibition, CUTPA provides a private cause of action to [a]ny person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment of a [prohibited] method, act or practice . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Stevenson Lumber Co.-Suffield, Inc. v. Chase Associates, Inc., 284 Conn. 205, 213-14 , 932 A.2d 401 (2007), quoting General Statutes § 42-110g (a).