Legal Opinion
Pinette v. McLaughlin
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided August 1, 2006No. AC 25598PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
STOUGHTON, J.
Following a fall on icy steps on January 24, 2000, the plaintiff, Deanna Pinette, brought an action in a two count complaint, commenced on January 16, 2003, against the defendants, Casey E. McLaughlin and Maura F. McLaughlin. Count one of the complaint alleged breach of contract, and count two alleged a violation of General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA). The court rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendants on both counts, and the plaintiff now appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Home Insurance v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- Gazo v. City of StamfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
- Conaway v. PrestiaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Macomber v. Travelers Property & Casualty Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
- Ventres v. Goodspeed Airport, LLCSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2005
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. GoreSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2008
- Angiolillo v. BuckmillerConnecticut Appellate Court · 2007
- State v. MauroConnecticut Appellate Court · 2008
- Pinette v. McLaughlinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
- Pinette v. McLaughlinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2006