Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

ROBERT EDMANDS ET AL. v. CUNO, INC. (SC 17321)
Sullivan, C. J., and Norcott, Katz, Palmer and Zarella, Js. Argued November 22, 2005--officially released March 21, 2006

Kenneth A. Votre, for the appellants (plaintiffs). William H. Bright, Jr., with whom, on the brief, were Charles D. Ray and Allison A. Wood, for the appellee (defendant).
Opinion

KATZ, J. This action arises from the termination of long-standing distributorship and sales representative agreements between the defendant, CUNO, Inc., and the plaintiffs, Robert Edmands, who filed the action in his name as ``doing business as Eastern Filter Sales,''

and Eastern Filter Sales Company (Eastern). The plaintiffs commenced the action after the defendant gave notice of its intent to terminate the agreements, and the defendant asserted counterclaims relating to the plaintiffs' alleged failure to return or pay for certain products in their possession. The plaintiffs appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, claiming that the court improperly determined that the plaintiffs could not prevail on their claims alleging: a violation of what is commonly known as the Connecticut Franchise Act (franchise act), specifically, General Statutes

Download Edmands v. CUNO, Inc..pdf

Connecticut Law