Marinos v. Poirot

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Marinos v. Poirot

37 A.3d 154, 303 Conn. 940, 2012 Conn. LEXIS 91

Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided February 21, 2012·No. SC 18924·Published

Opinion

The plaintiffs’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 132 Conn. App. 693 (AC 33193), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly determine that, on a Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) claim for damages, the trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants because the plaintiff ‘failed to produce an itemization of her claimed CUTPA damages?’ ”

PALMER, McLACHLAN and HARPER, Js., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The plaintiffs’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 132 Conn. App. 693 (AC 33193), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly determine that, on a Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) claim for damages, the trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants because the plaintiff ‘failed to produce an itemization of her claimed CUTPA damages?’ ”

PALMER, McLACHLAN and HARPER, Js., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.

Marinos v. Poirot, 37 A.3d 154, 303 Conn. 940, 2012 Conn. LEXIS 91 (Colo. 2012).

Pincite

37 A.3d 154 (Marinos v. Poirot) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related