Reader v. Cassarino’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
2 district · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably 79 Conn. App. 22 - Advanced Financial Services, Inc. v. Associated Appraisal Services, Inc. (2003), Kronberg Bros. v. Steele (2002)
2 district · 34 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Pandolphe's Auto Parts, Inc. v. Town of Manchester · Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corp. · Haesche v. Kissner · Buckman v. People Express, Inc. · Beverly Hills Concepts, Inc. v. Schatz & Schatz, Ribicoff & Kotkin
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]ny person who suffers any ascertainable loss of maney or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment of a method, act or practice prohibited by section 42-110b . . .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A] party seeking to recover damages under CUTPA must meet two threshold requirements. First, he [or she] must establish that the conduct at issue constitutes an unfair or deceptive trade practice. . . . Second, he must present evidence providing the court with a basis for a reasonable estimate of the damages suffered. Reader v. Cassarino, 51 Conn. App. 292 , 299 , 721 A.2d 911 , 915 . The court has traditionally applied the three-factor "cigarette rule”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“`A party seeking to recover damages under CUTPA must meet two threshold requirements. First, he [or she] must establish that the conduct at issue constitutes an unfair or deceptive trade practice. . . .Second, he must present evidence providing the court with a basis for a reasonable estimate of the damages suffered.' . . . Jacques All Trades Corp. v. Brown , 42 Conn. App. 124 , 130 , 679 A.2d 27 (1996), aff'd, 240 Conn. 654 , 692 A.2d 809 (1997). The second requirement for a valid CUTPA claim does not necessitate that the actual amount of ascertainable loss be proven. See Beverly Hills Concepts, Inc. v. Schatz Schatz, Ribicoff Kotkin , 247 Conn. 48 , 78-79 , 717 A.2d 724 (1998); Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corp. , 184 Conn. 607 , 614 , 440 A.2d 810 (1981), on appeal after remand, 192 Conn. 252 , 470 A.2d 121 (1984).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.