plaintiffs further claim in Connecticut

2022The plaintiffs further claim that the court misapplied the precedent of our Supreme Court in Zachs v. Zoning Board of Appeals, supra, 218 Conn. 324 .

2017Specifically, the plaintiffs argue that, because an essential element of a claim for tortious interference is that the plaintiffs suffer an "actual loss"; (internal quotation marks omitted) American Diamond Exchange, Inc. v. Alpert , 302 Conn. 494 , 510, 28 A.3d 976 (2011) ; 15 it was incumbent on the town, for purposes of its *429 motion for summary judgment, to present evidence demonstrating that the plaintiffs sustained losses prior to the commencement of the injunction action.

2017Specifically, the plaintiffs argue that, because an essential element of a claim for tortious interference is that the plaintiffs suffer an "actual loss"; (internal quotation marks omitted) American Diamond Exchange, Inc. v. Alpert , 302 Conn. 494 , 510, 28 A.3d 976 (2011) ; 15 it was incumbent on the town, for purposes of its *429 motion for summary judgment, to present evidence demonstrating that the plaintiffs sustained losses prior to the commencement of the injunction action.

2011“A defamatory statement is defined as a communication that tends to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Spears v. Elder, 124 Conn. App. 280, 287 , 5 A.3d 500 , cert. denied, 299 Conn. 913 , 10 A.3d 528 (2010).

2011“A defamatory statement is defined as a communication that tends to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Spears v. Elder, 124 Conn. App. 280, 287 , 5 A.3d 500 , cert. denied, 299 Conn. 913 , 10 A.3d 528 (2010).

2011“A defamatory statement is defined as a communication that tends to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Spears v. Elder, 124 Conn. App. 280, 287 , 5 A.3d 500 , cert. denied, 299 Conn. 913 , 10 A.3d 528 (2010).

2011“A defamatory statement is defined as a communication that tends to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Spears v. Elder, 124 Conn. App. 280, 287 , 5 A.3d 500 , cert. denied, 299 Conn. 913 , 10 A.3d 528 (2010).

2007The defendants respond that the trial court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal because the rationale underlying Morel v. Commissioner of Public Health, 262 Conn. 222, 233-40 , 811 A.2d 1256 (2002), overruled on other grounds by Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Board of Education, 270 Conn. 665, 675 , 855 A.2d 212 (2004), wherein we concluded that a hearing required to be held by federal regulation does not give rise to a contested case, supports the conclusion that a hearing required to be held by federal statute likewise does not give rise to a contested case.

2007The defendants respond that the trial court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal because the rationale underlying Morel v. Commissioner of Public Health, 262 Conn. 222, 233-40 , 811 A.2d 1256 (2002), overruled on other grounds by Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Board of Education, 270 Conn. 665, 675 , 855 A.2d 212 (2004), wherein we concluded that a hearing required to be held by federal regulation does not give rise to a contested case, supports the conclusion that a hearing required to be held by federal statute likewise does not give rise to a contested case.

2007The defendants respond that the trial court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal because the rationale underlying Morel v. Commissioner of Public Health, 262 Conn. 222, 233-40 , 811 A.2d 1256 (2002), overruled on other grounds by Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Board of Education, 270 Conn. 665, 675 , 855 A.2d 212 (2004), wherein we concluded that a hearing required to be held by federal regulation does not give rise to a contested case, supports the conclusion that a hearing required to be held by federal statute likewise does not give rise to a contested case.

2007The defendants respond that the trial court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal because the rationale underlying Morel v. Commissioner of Public Health, 262 Conn. 222, 233-40 , 811 A.2d 1256 (2002), overruled on other grounds by Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Board of Education, 270 Conn. 665, 675 , 855 A.2d 212 (2004), wherein we concluded that a hearing required to be held by federal regulation does not give rise to a contested case, supports the conclusion that a hearing required to be held by federal statute likewise does not give rise to a contested case.

2002The plaintiffs further claim that Lockwood v. Professional Wheelchair Transportation, Inc., 37 Conn. App. 85 , 654 A.2d 1252 , cert. denied, 233 Conn. 902 , 657 A.2d 649 (1995), is controlling of the present case.

2002The plaintiffs further claim that Lockwood v. Professional Wheelchair Transportation, Inc., 37 Conn. App. 85 , 654 A.2d 1252 , cert. denied, 233 Conn. 902 , 657 A.2d 649 (1995), is controlling of the present case.

2002The plaintiffs further claim that Lockwood v. Professional Wheelchair Transportation, Inc., 37 Conn. App. 85 , 654 A.2d 1252 , cert. denied, 233 Conn. 902 , 657 A.2d 649 (1995), is controlling of the present case.

2002If you determine that the defendant Wal-Mart was negligent in maintaining the floor in a slippery condition, irrespective of the cause of the slipperiness, you can infer from this evidence that the defendant failed to use reasonable care to keep the premises reasonably safe for business visitors, such as the plaintiff and, thus, was negligent." Gray v. Fitzgerald and Platt, Inc. , 144 Conn. 57 , 59 (1956).

1986In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, this court must make every reasonable presumption in favor of its action.” ’ ” (Citations omitted.) Yanow v. Teal Industries, Inc., 196 Conn. 579, 583 , 494 A.2d 573 (1985).

1986In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, this court must make every reasonable presumption in favor of its action.” ’ ” (Citations omitted.) Yanow v. Teal Industries, Inc., 196 Conn. 579, 583 , 494 A.2d 573 (1985).