Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Citation
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Parent Document
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 1997-05-06
Other Sections in This Document (32)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
Full Text
1,013 charsConnecticut applies the so-called cigarette rule, which sets out the standard for a CUTPA violation: “(1) [wjhether the practice, without necessarily having been previously considered unlawful, offends public policy as it has been established by statutes, the common law, or otherwise—whether, in other words, it is within at least the penumbra of some common law, statutory, or other established concept of unfairness; (2) whether it is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; (3) whether it causes substantial injury to consumers [or competitors or other businessmen].” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Williams Ford, Inc. v. Hartford Courant Co., 232 Conn. 559, 591-92, 657 A.2d 212 (1995). “ ‘All three criteria do not need to be satisfied to support a finding of unfairness. A practice may be unfair because of the degree to which it meets one of the criteria or because to a lesser extent it meets all three.’ ” Cheshire Mortgage Service, Inc. v. Montes, 223 Conn. 80, 106, 612 A.2d 1130 (1992).