Legal Opinion
Janusauskas v. Fichman
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided March 19, 2002No. AC 19521PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
MIHALAKOS, J.
The plaintiff, Albert Janusauskas, appeals from the judgment rendered for the defendant, Richard A. Fichman, after the trial court denied the plaintiffs motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial. Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) directed a verdict for the defendant on the plaintiffs breach of contract claim, (2) directed a verdict for the defendant on the plaintiffs claim under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., (3) denied the plaintiff the right to cross-examine the defendant’s…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Haynes v. Yale-New Haven HospitalSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
- Sherwood v. Danbury HospitalSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2000
- Burnham v. Karl & Gelb, P.C.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2000
- State v. DavisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
- Nelson v. HoMichigan Court of Appeals · 1997
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Rosato v. MascardoConnecticut Appellate Court · 2004
- Janusauskas v. FichmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2003
- Constant v. WyethDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2003
- Ferrigno v. Pep BoysConnecticut Superior Court · 2003
- Janusauskas v. FichmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.