5 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1976–2000 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 |
|---|---|---|
Richmond v. City of Norwichgreen2 sentences1976State v. Gelinas, 160 Conn. 366, 368 , 279 A.2d 552 ; State v. Blake, supra, 104 ; see Richmond v. Norwich, 96 Conn. 582, 593 , 115 A. 11 , for the reasoning behind the rule; see also 7 Wigmore, Evidence (3d Ed.) 77 1980, 1986. 1976State v. Gelinas, 160 Conn. 366, 368 , 279 A.2d 552 ; State v. Blake, supra, 104 ; see Richmond v. Norwich, 96 Conn. 582, 593 , 115 A. 11 , for the reasoning behind the rule; see also 7 Wigmore, Evidence (3d Ed.) 77 1980, 1986. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Boulevard Associates v. Sovereign Hotels, Inc.
green
2 sentences2000The reasoning behind this rule is well-stated by Judge Calabresi at 72 F.3d at p. 1039 , where he says: "A rule to the contrary — that a company violates CUTPA whenever it I breaks an unprofitable deal — would convert every contract dispute into a CUTPA violation. 1998The reasoning behind this rule is well stated by Judge Calabresi at 72 F.3d at page 1039 where he says: A rule to the contrary — that a company violates CUTPA whenever it breaks an unprofitable deal — would convert every contract dispute into a CUTPA violation. | 2 | 1998–2000 |
Lester v. Resort Camplands International, Inc.
green
1 sentence2000We cannot assume that the Connecticut legislature, in enacting CUTPA, intended such an extraordinary alteration of the common law." But it is also true that "the same facts that establish a beach of contract claim may be sufficient to establish a CUTPA violation." Lester v. Resort Campgrounds International, Inc. , 27 Conn. App. 59 , 71 (1992). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co.
green
2 sentences1994First, the court noted the revolution in the law of negligence, sparked by MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382 , 111 N.E. 1050 (1916), that rejected privity from negligence doctrine. 1994First, the court noted the revolution in the law of negligence, sparked by MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382 , 111 N.E. 1050 (1916), that rejected privity from negligence doctrine. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Halpern v. Board of Education
green
1 sentence1991The reasoning behind the rule was given in Halpern, 196 Conn. at 652 -53 : The pendency of a prior suit of the same character, between the same parties, brought to obtain the same end or object, is, at common law, good cause for abatement. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Gelinas
green
2 sentences1976State v. Gelinas, 160 Conn. 366, 368 , 279 A.2d 552 ; State v. Blake, supra, 104 ; see Richmond v. Norwich, 96 Conn. 582, 593 , 115 A. 11 , for the reasoning behind the rule; see also 7 Wigmore, Evidence (3d Ed.) 77 1980, 1986. 1976State v. Gelinas, 160 Conn. 366, 368 , 279 A.2d 552 ; State v. Blake, supra, 104 ; see Richmond v. Norwich, 96 Conn. 582, 593 , 115 A. 11 , for the reasoning behind the rule; see also 7 Wigmore, Evidence (3d Ed.) 77 1980, 1986. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.