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.
5 Connecticut opinions name it 1 courts 1993–2003 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States Trust Co. v. Bohartgreen1 sentence2000See also United States Trust Co. v. Bohart , 197 Conn. 34 , 45 (1985) CT Page 16150 Plaintiff's verified complaint alleges seven counts: the First Count for violation of CFA against defendant A-B; the Second Count for breach of contract against defendant A-B; the Third Count for implied covenant of good faith and fair dealings against defendant A-B; the Fourth Count for violation of CUTPA against defendant A-B; the Fifth Count for violation of CUTPA against defendant Daub; the Sixth Count for violation of CUTPA against defendant Lupone; and Seventh Count for tortuous interference with contract | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nichols v. Lighthouse Restaurant, Inc.
green
1 sentence2003(Amended complaint, para. 16.) Standard of Review for Summary Judgment Summary judgment "shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." LaFlamme v. Dallessio, 261 Conn. 247 , 250 (2002); OSP, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co., 256 Conn. 343 , 351 (2001); Alvarez v. New Haven Register, Inc., 249 Conn. 709 , 714 (1999); Nichols v. Lighthouse Restaurant, Inc., 246 Conn. 156 , 163 (1998); Peerless Ins. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
QSP, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
green
1 sentence2003(Amended complaint, para. 16.) Standard of Review for Summary Judgment Summary judgment "shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." LaFlamme v. Dallessio, 261 Conn. 247 , 250 (2002); OSP, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co., 256 Conn. 343 , 351 (2001); Alvarez v. New Haven Register, Inc., 249 Conn. 709 , 714 (1999); Nichols v. Lighthouse Restaurant, Inc., 246 Conn. 156 , 163 (1998); Peerless Ins. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Alvarez v. New Haven Register, Inc.
green
1 sentence2003(Amended complaint, para. 16.) Standard of Review for Summary Judgment Summary judgment "shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." LaFlamme v. Dallessio, 261 Conn. 247 , 250 (2002); OSP, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co., 256 Conn. 343 , 351 (2001); Alvarez v. New Haven Register, Inc., 249 Conn. 709 , 714 (1999); Nichols v. Lighthouse Restaurant, Inc., 246 Conn. 156 , 163 (1998); Peerless Ins. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
LaFlamme v. Dallessio
green
1 sentence2003(Amended complaint, para. 16.) Standard of Review for Summary Judgment Summary judgment "shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." LaFlamme v. Dallessio, 261 Conn. 247 , 250 (2002); OSP, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co., 256 Conn. 343 , 351 (2001); Alvarez v. New Haven Register, Inc., 249 Conn. 709 , 714 (1999); Nichols v. Lighthouse Restaurant, Inc., 246 Conn. 156 , 163 (1998); Peerless Ins. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Mead v. Burns
green
1 sentence2002In the seminal case of Mead v. Burns , 199 Conn. 651 , 663-66 , the Supreme Court stated that the plaintiff could not maintain a CUTPA action for an insurance practice which did not constitute a violation of CUIPA. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Burkert v. Petrol Plus of Naugatuck, Inc.
green
2 sentences1995Such proof requires a plaintiff to establish four separate elements: `(1) that the other tortfeasor was negligent; (2) that his negligence, rather than the plaintiff's, was the direct, immediate cause of the accident and injuries; (3) that he was in control of the situation to the exclusion of the plaintiff; and (4) that the plaintiff did not know of such negligence, had no reason to anticipate it, and could reasonably rely on the other tortfeasor not to be negligent.'" (citations omitted.) Burkert v. Petrol Plus of Naugatuck, Inc., 216 Conn. 65 , 579 A.2d 26 (1990). 1995Such proof requires a plaintiff to establish four separate elements: `(1) that the other tortfeasor was negligent; (2) that his negligence, rather than the plaintiff's, was the direct, immediate cause of the accident and injuries; (3) that he was in control of the situation to the exclusion of the plaintiff; and (4) that the plaintiff did not know of such negligence, had no reason to anticipate it, and could reasonably rely on the other tortfeasor not to be negligent.'" (citations omitted.) Burkert v. Petrol Plus of Naugatuck, Inc., 216 Conn. 65 , 579 A.2d 26 (1990). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Burns v. Koellmer
green
1 sentence1993"Unjust enrichment is a legal doctrine to be applied when no remedy is available pursuant to a contract." Burns v. Koellmer, 11 Conn. App. 375 , 383 (1987). | 1 | 1993–1993 |