Hinchliffe v. Am. Motors Corp., 470 A.2d 1216 (Conn. 1984). · Go Syfert
Search
Hinchliffe v. Am. Motors Corp., 470 A.2d 1216 (Conn. 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“the standard utilized by the court for determining whether the defendants' would have a deceptive impact on a consumer, is the standard applicable to an unthinking, ignorant and credulous person.”
69 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Richards v. Direct Energy Services, LLC (ctd, 2017-03-31)
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Richards v. Direct Energy Services, LLC (2×)
D. Conn. · 2017 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence low
the standard utilized by the court for determining whether the defendants' would have a deceptive impact on a consumer, is the standard applicable to an unthinking, ignorant and credulous person.
discussed Cited "see" Thiedemann v. Mercedes-Benz USA (2×)
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corp., 184 Conn. 607 , 440 A. 2d 810, 812 (1981), aff'd after remand, 192 Conn. 252 , 470 A. 2d 1216 (1984); Service Rd.
discussed Cited "see" Zewinski v. Volpe, No. Cv-98-0488391 S (Jun. 4, 2001) (2×)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corp ., 39 Conn. Sup. 107 , 110 , 114 , 471 A.2d 980 (1982), affirmed, 192 Conn. 252 , 470 A.2d 1216 (1984).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Loiseau v. Board of Tax Review (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
A court may find that a plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case “when the evidence produced by the plaintiff, if fully believed, would not permit the trier in reason to find the essential issues on the complaint in favor of the plaintiff.” Minicozzi v. Atlantic Refining Co., 143 Conn. 226, 230 , 120 A.2d 924 (1956); see also Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corp., 184 Conn. 607, 609 , 440 A.2d 810 (1981), on appeal after remand, 192 Conn. 252 , 470 A.2d 1216 (1984).
Lorraine Hinchliffe
v.
American Motors Corporation
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Feb 14, 1984.
470 A.2d 1216
Alan L. Robertson, Jr., with whom were Jason E. Pearl and, on the brief, Mary Gambardella, law student intern, for the appellants (plaintiffs)., Philip S. Walker, with whom were Sharon S. Tisher and, on the brief, Barry D. Guliano, for the appellees (named defendant et al.)., Robert B. Shapiro, for the appellee (defendant Lip-man Motors, Inc.).
Cited by 36 opinions  |  Published
1 passages pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 59%
Citer courts: D. Connecticut (2)
Per Curiam.

This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a judgment by the trial court for the defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that a motor vehicle purchased from the defendant Lipman Motors did not perform as the plaintiffs had been led to expect. The facts are fully set out in Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corporation, 184 Conn. 607, 440 A.2d 810 (1981). Originally, the action was brought in six counts but all the counts were dismissed by the trial court for the plaintiffs’ failure to present a prima facie case. On appeal, this court remanded the case to the trial court for retrial on the three counts alleging breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corporation, supra. Upon retrial, the trial court rendered judgment for the defendants on each count.

The plaintiffs have appealed to this court alleging error (1) in the trial court’s interpretation and application of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act; (2) in the trial court’s failure to find a breach of express warranty; and (3) in the trial court’s failure to find a breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.

The trial court filed a lengthy and detailed memorandum discussing each of these issues. Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corporation, 39 Conn. Sup. 107, 471 A.2d 980 (1982). After examining the record on appeal and after considering the briefs of the parties and their arguments, we conclude that there is no error in the trial court's judgment “and that the memorandum of decision filed by the trial court adequately and properly disposes of the contentions of the parties before us. That decision may be referred to for a detailed discussion of the facts and the applicable law. It would serve[*254] no useful purpose to repeat them here.” Ribicoff v. Division of Public Utility Control, 187 Conn. 247, 248, 445 A.2d 324 (1982).

There is no error.