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.
7 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commercial Credit Corporation, a Corporation v. Empire Trust Company, a Corporationgreen1 sentence2008See, e.g., Commercial Credit Corp. v. Empire Trust Co., 260 F.2d 132, 134 (8th Cir. 1958) (bank may be relieved of liability by reason of money reaching intended person); Ambassador Financial Services, Inc. v. Indiana National Bank, 605 N.E.2d 746, 752 (Ind. 1992) (“The mitigation of damages defense reduces the bank’s liability to the extent the proceeds of the check were received by the payee and applied to the specific debt to which the payee intended they apply. . . . | 1 | 1 |
Ambassador Financial Services, Inc. v. Indiana National Bankgreen1 sentence2008See, e.g., Commercial Credit Corp. v. Empire Trust Co., 260 F.2d 132, 134 (8th Cir. 1958) (bank may be relieved of liability by reason of money reaching intended person); Ambassador Financial Services, Inc. v. Indiana National Bank, 605 N.E.2d 746, 752 (Ind. 1992) (“The mitigation of damages defense reduces the bank’s liability to the extent the proceeds of the check were received by the payee and applied to the specific debt to which the payee intended they apply. . . . | 1 | 1 |
Seaboard Music Co. v. Germanogreen2 sentences2001Most of the lost volume seller cases involve the sale of goods, rather than personal service; see, e.g., Seaboard Music Co. v. Germano, 24 Cal. App. 3d 618 , 101 Cal. Rptr. 255 (1972); Wired Music, Inc. v. D.M. 2001Most of the lost volume seller cases involve the sale of goods, rather than personal service; see, e.g., Seaboard Music Co. v. Germano, 24 Cal. App. 3d 618 , 101 Cal. Rptr. 255 (1972); Wired Music, Inc. v. D.M. | 1 | 1 |
Wired Music, Inc. v. Clarkgreen1 sentence2001See also Wired Music, Inc. v. Clark , 168 N.E.2d 736 (Ill., 1960), suit brought by distributor of music by telephone wire, no duty to mitigate found with court saying, "the evidence is uncontradicted that plaintiff could supply any number of additional customers without incurring further expense except for wire rental." The fair import of the evidence in this case indicates that the plaintiff operated a three hundred foot tower with numerous space available for other licensees and prospective licensees. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Herrera v. Madrak
green
2 sentences2011In Herrera v. Madrak, 58 Conn. App. 320, 324 , 752 A.2d 1161 (2000), this court held that there was evidence sufficient to warrant a jury charge on mitigation of damages where the plaintiff had missed more than twelve physical therapy appointments over a span of seven months. 2011In Herrera v. Madrak, 58 Conn. App. 320, 324 , 752 A.2d 1161 (2000), this court held that there was evidence sufficient to warrant a jury charge on mitigation of damages where the plaintiff had missed more than twelve physical therapy appointments over a span of seven months. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Bankers Trust of South Carolina v. South Carolina National Bank
green
2 sentences2008The mitigation of damages defense is aimed *808 at preventing unjust enrichment, and it exists to prevent a payee from recovering on a forged endorsement to the extent the payee did not suffer damages in the transaction.” [Citation omitted.]); Comerica Bank v. Michigan National Bank, 211 Mich. App. 534, 538 , 536 N.W.2d 298 (1995) (noting that bank may avoid liability for honoring check with improper endorsement when bank can prove intended payee received proceeds of check); Bankers Trust of South Carolina v. South Carolina National Bank of Charleston, 284 S.C. 238, 244 , 325 S.E.2d 81 (S.C. 2008The mitigation of damages defense is aimed *808 at preventing unjust enrichment, and it exists to prevent a payee from recovering on a forged endorsement to the extent the payee did not suffer damages in the transaction.” [Citation omitted.]); Comerica Bank v. Michigan National Bank, 211 Mich. App. 534, 538 , 536 N.W.2d 298 (1995) (noting that bank may avoid liability for honoring check with improper endorsement when bank can prove intended payee received proceeds of check); Bankers Trust of South Carolina v. South Carolina National Bank of Charleston, 284 S.C. 238, 244 , 325 S.E.2d 81 (S.C. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Comerica Bank v. Michigan National Bank
green
2 sentences2008The mitigation of damages defense is aimed *808 at preventing unjust enrichment, and it exists to prevent a payee from recovering on a forged endorsement to the extent the payee did not suffer damages in the transaction.” [Citation omitted.]); Comerica Bank v. Michigan National Bank, 211 Mich. App. 534, 538 , 536 N.W.2d 298 (1995) (noting that bank may avoid liability for honoring check with improper endorsement when bank can prove intended payee received proceeds of check); Bankers Trust of South Carolina v. South Carolina National Bank of Charleston, 284 S.C. 238, 244 , 325 S.E.2d 81 (S.C. 2008The mitigation of damages defense is aimed *808 at preventing unjust enrichment, and it exists to prevent a payee from recovering on a forged endorsement to the extent the payee did not suffer damages in the transaction.” [Citation omitted.]); Comerica Bank v. Michigan National Bank, 211 Mich. App. 534, 538 , 536 N.W.2d 298 (1995) (noting that bank may avoid liability for honoring check with improper endorsement when bank can prove intended payee received proceeds of check); Bankers Trust of South Carolina v. South Carolina National Bank of Charleston, 284 S.C. 238, 244 , 325 S.E.2d 81 (S.C. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Pamar Enterprises, Inc. v. Huntington Banks
green
1 sentence2008Id., 737 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Western Grain Co. v. Barron G. Collier, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2001Collier, Inc. , 258 S.W. 979 (Ark., 1924); Locks v. Wade , 114 A.2d 875 (NJ, 1955). also see the case of Ietz Service Co. v. Salina Properties , 865 P.2d 1051 , 1054 et seq (Kan., 1993) which contains a thorough discussion of the mitigation of damages rule and the exception to its operation now being discussed. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Jetz Service Co. v. Salina Properties
green
1 sentence2001Collier, Inc. , 258 S.W. 979 (Ark., 1924); Locks v. Wade , 114 A.2d 875 (NJ, 1955). also see the case of Ietz Service Co. v. Salina Properties , 865 P.2d 1051 , 1054 et seq (Kan., 1993) which contains a thorough discussion of the mitigation of damages rule and the exception to its operation now being discussed. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Locks v. Wade
green
2 sentences2001Collier, Inc. , 258 S.W. 979 (Ark., 1924); Locks v. Wade , 114 A.2d 875 (NJ, 1955). also see the case of Ietz Service Co. v. Salina Properties , 865 P.2d 1051 , 1054 et seq (Kan., 1993) which contains a thorough discussion of the mitigation of damages rule and the exception to its operation now being discussed. 2001The spirit of the test to be applied is best set forth in Locks v. Wade , supra, at 114 A.2d pp. 876-879 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Donald Rubin, Inc. v. Schwartz
green
1 sentence2001Donald Rubin, Inc. v. Schwartz, supra, 191 App. Div. 2d 172. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Lee v. Harris
neutral
2 sentences1999Such value may often properly be shown by proof of what it would cost to perform the omitted acts." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lee v. Harris, 85 Conn. 212 , 214-15 , 82 A. 186 (1912) In addition, the plaintiffs' claim of loss of rental income for two apartments in the building for a two-year period is not credible nor warranted in law by the doctrine of mitigation of damages. 1999Such value may often properly be shown by proof of what it would cost to perform the omitted acts." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lee v. Harris, 85 Conn. 212 , 214-15 , 82 A. 186 (1912) In addition, the plaintiffs' claim of loss of rental income for two apartments in the building for a two-year period is not credible nor warranted in law by the doctrine of mitigation of damages. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Preston v. Keith
green
1 sentence1998Connecticut Jury Instructions (Civil) Wright Ackerman Fourth Ed. §§ 242(a) and 242(c); Preston v. Keith , 217 Conn. 12 , 15-19 (1991). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Felsted v. Kimberly Auto Services, Inc.
green
1 sentence1995Specifically, he argues that the court failed to instruct the jury as to which party had the burden of proof with respect to mitigation of damages. 3 “In reviewing a challenge to jury instructions, we must examine the charge in its entirety.’ Felsted v. Kimberly Auto Services, Inc., 25 Conn. App. 665, 668 , 596 A.2d 14 , cert. denied, 220 Conn. 922 , 597 A.2d 342 (1991). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Geisler
green
1 sentence1995Specifically, he argues that the court failed to instruct the jury as to which party had the burden of proof with respect to mitigation of damages. 3 “In reviewing a challenge to jury instructions, we must examine the charge in its entirety.’ Felsted v. Kimberly Auto Services, Inc., 25 Conn. App. 665, 668 , 596 A.2d 14 , cert. denied, 220 Conn. 922 , 597 A.2d 342 (1991). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Felsted v. Kimberly Auto Services, Inc.
green
2 sentences1995Specifically, he argues that the court failed to instruct the jury as to which party had the burden of proof with respect to mitigation of damages. 3 “In reviewing a challenge to jury instructions, we must examine the charge in its entirety.’ Felsted v. Kimberly Auto Services, Inc., 25 Conn. App. 665, 668 , 596 A.2d 14 , cert. denied, 220 Conn. 922 , 597 A.2d 342 (1991). 1995Specifically, he argues that the court failed to instruct the jury as to which party had the burden of proof with respect to mitigation of damages. 3 “In reviewing a challenge to jury instructions, we must examine the charge in its entirety.’ Felsted v. Kimberly Auto Services, Inc., 25 Conn. App. 665, 668 , 596 A.2d 14 , cert. denied, 220 Conn. 922 , 597 A.2d 342 (1991). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.