Legal Opinion
Service Road Corp. v. Quinn
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided July 15, 1997No. SC 15506; SC 15607PublishedCited by 49 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
CALLAHAN, C. J.
The principal issue in this appeal is whether the trial court properly concluded that the plaintiffs suffered an “ascertainable loss of money or property,” as required to maintain an action pursuant to General Statutes § 42-110g,1 which is part of the Con*632necticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), as the result of the installation of several video surveillance cameras by the named defendant, Daniel Quinn, on his property. The cameras were focused on the front entrances to the plaintiffs’ two neighboring business establishments. We conclude, inter alia, that the trial…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Pandolphe's Auto Parts, Inc. v. Town of ManchesterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
- Larsen Chelsey Realty Co. v. LarsenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- Fink v. GolenbockSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
- McLaughlin Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by49 opinions
- Discover Bank v. MorganTennessee Supreme Court · 2012
- Beverly Hills Concepts, Inc. v. Schatz & Schatz, Ribicoff & KotkinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
- State v. SantiagoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
- State v. CopasSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2000
- In re Target Corp. Customer Data Security Breach LitigationDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2014
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.