Legal Opinion
Witham v. Itt Hartford, No. Cv96-0132891 (Jun. 4, 1997)
Connecticut Superior Court
Decided June 4, 1997No. CV96-0132891Unpublished
1Opinion of the Court
[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO STRIKE (#112) ANDOPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE (#113) The court denies the defendant's motion to strike the third count of the amended complaint.
The third count does not allege a violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 38a-816 (6) which requires an allegation of general business practice. See Mead v. Burns, 199 Conn. 651. Sections 816 (15) and 816 (16) do not require such an allegation. A single act can constitute a violation of CUTPA where the CT Page 6378 underlying claim is…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Mead v. BurnsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
- Gargano v. HeymanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- Lester v. Resort Camplands International, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1992
- Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. v. MerrillMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
- Gudnason v. Life Insurance Co. of North AmericaSupreme Court of Virginia · 1986
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.